Jason Desrosiers

> This is true, but then that's not a requirement of the spec. It is (and was intended to be) a requirement. See, https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/json-schema-core#section-9.3.1-6 > _A Bundled Schema Resource MUST...

I agree with Ben in that I don't think its a problem for the bundle to have the same identifier as the main schema. There's no reason other than the...

> **We do have to keep in mind the primary reason this work was done in the first place**: Provide a standard approach for removing external references in a non-breaking...

I meant "external references" to mean references outside of the current schema document. I believe that's the way @Relequestual was using the term in his last comment and that's what...

I finished updating my [bundler tests](https://github.com/hyperjump-io/json-schema/tree/main/bundle). Have a look and let me know if you're happy with the approach. If so, I'll make a PR here. There's a README there...

There's definitely some overlap with output format testing, but I see these as separate things and it makes sense to test these things separately. Tests that just cover an output...

> Then I think the output tests need a different focus I disagree. I think annotation tests serve a different purpose than output tests. It's no different than how validation...

If you want to take on this issue, make a proposal here about how you want to approach the problem. @AnirudhJindal, you're on the right track in that regard, but...

> Could you help me understand the preferred format for such proposals in this project? There is no preferred format. It's not formal. Just communicate your ideas and your plan...

That's a good start to the conversation. When Ben expressed a preference for readable identifiers, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the test description. For example, my implementation skips...