Jason Desrosiers

> I do support it 👏 I'm impressed. I would be surprised if there were many others that do. > I pretty much leave it up to .Net's built-in [Uri](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.uri)...

> I think 2 and 3 make the most sense to me. I just want to make sure we're on the same page about what (2) would mean. We've been...

We got two votes in the [slack thread](https://json-schema.slack.com/archives/CT8QRGTK5/p1759877894473959?thread_ts=1759350184.061919&cid=CT8QRGTK5) for moving all IDNA2008 dependent formats to the registry and continuing to require full validation.

Hi @SorinGFS 👋 > Actually there are few, most notably [tr46](https://www.npmjs.com/package/tr46). I found tr46, but it's not an implementation of RFC 589[0-3] (IDNA2008), it's an implementation of `UTS #46`. The...

I've come to a better understanding of how this works from reading [RFC 5895](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5895.html). IDNA2008 (RFC 589[0-3]) defines a framework for international domain names, but doesn't specify a complete implementation....

@Zash, do these tests cover the case you were talking about in #767? It's not 100% clear to me what the case was exactly, especially because the example given was...

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that JSON Schema currently doesn't have concept of a keyword producing a warning. Keywords produce a validation result (true/false) and/or an annotation. So,...

@SatyamKumarCS, please take more care when volunteering to be assigned an issue. This issue is clearly not ready to be assigned to anyone and is not likely to go forward...

I don't see how the `urn:` tests are any less of a canary than `tag:` tests would be. Although it would be setting a better example to have `tag:` tests...

> Weird, I wonder what these implementations are doing that they would see some URI schemas as being different? I think most language's standard libraries implement WHATWG's URL rather than...