json-schema-spec
json-schema-spec copied to clipboard
json-schema-org
Extract vocabularies from the specs
Relates to https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/724 and https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/pull/1505.
Depends on #1518 Depends on #1512 (will likely need rebase after those merge)
The Core spec was a lot, but it was fairly straightforward.
This PR will make a best effort to include vocabularies as they are in 2020-12 as a start. Some redesign is inevitible, but this this is a good starting point.
Yes, the word was present, but it was used very loosely. Later we added it with a very specific (and vaguely different) meaning but didn't address the existing usages. (See https://json-schema.org/draft-07/json-schema-validation.)
I figure it's better for now to just remove it completely. I don't think that the text suffers.
I figure it's better for now to just remove it completely. I don't think that the text suffers.
That's fine with me. I didn't think the text suffered, I was just trying to make this a smaller job :smile:.
Reminder (to me): open a new issue to discuss the future of the keyword and link all of the issues I've been linking ☝️
@jdesrosiers would you please re-review this? I've made changes according to our conversations.
Also, would you be satisfied with the proposal doc in its current state as a starting point? I fully expect further issues and PRs to be created to edit the proposal.
[Just some housekeeping]
Issues to be opened and addressed in follow-up PRs:
- define "dialect" and how vocabs relate to it (also this comment)
- unknown format handling
- defining meta-schema vs "vocab schema" vs "[whatever] schema" more clearly
I feel like this is a change in the meaning of "meta-schema" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
Regarding this, I feel we've been misusing "meta-schema" by allowing it to refer to schemas that describe vocabs, and I want us to return to using it to refer to schemas that describes schemas.
It's not a change in definition; it's a return to correct usage.
But, I'm ok with merging this as is as an iteration.
Definitely, this PR is focused on getting vocabs out of the spec so that we can start iterating on the spec again. This is the last piece that we agreed to remove.
The proposal is definitely unfinished. The approach I took was to just make it as close to the 2020-12 behavior as I could. I recognize that it won't work with the next spec, but we need a starting point. The proposal will continue to evolve and will likely not look much like its current state when it's done. Maybe it'll just be wholesale replaced by something better.