Jason Desrosiers

> for this issue the only thing that matters is whether a JSON Schema implementation can accept a base URI to use or not. I disagree and I explain why...

Of course a UJS page doesn't imply any requirement on implementations. It just helps people understand the concepts so they can make better choices about what they support in their...

Right now, the spec is quite bloated with things that don't necessarily belong in a specification. Mostly I think that's because we didn't really have anywhere else to put things,...

It looks like the consensus in the linked issue was to mention it in the `patternProperties` keyword rather than as a general statement. It seems that if you're going to...

The way I see it, if the referenced schema doesn't exist, then the result of validation of an instance against the schema isn't true or false, it's indeterminate. We don't...

I went though this fairly closely when it was merged. I didn't do it out diligence, it was just a really nasty merge that forced me to scrutinize every line...

> `contentSchema` is an annotation. It is never applied as part of normal evaluation (although see https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1287), and shouldn't be processed at schema load time like a subschema of an...

> `contentSchema` is specifically **_not_** an applicator or schema location keyword The spec only says that the keyword contains a schema. Without any other guidance than that, I'd expect it...

> What would it even mean to treat it like a normal schema? How would that solve the problem at hand, which is using it as an annotation? In this...

I see your point, but I can't imagine a case where someone would have access to the annotations but not the schema. Just because I can't image it doesn't mean...