Pavel Petrochenko

As for me I do not see any need to include this types into set of the built in types in the language, but of course I am fully agree...

as for me it should be `any` (we define that `MyType` is array), but does not add any additional restrictions. Regards, Pavel

As for me I prefer a bit more generic approach which I name scopes: lets consider following set of annotation types from this library https://github.com/apiregistry/typesExtras/blob/master/typeExtras.raml): ``` raml RequiredIn: type: string...

It is definitely not clarified in the spec at this moment. As well as I know current JS parser implementation, tracks parameter origin and initially attempts to resolve type from...

It is same as in http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#anchor6

According to what I see in spec and partially in the API workbench implementation: In the `settings` node: >The settings node describes the minimum set of properties that any processing...

Yep

Completely agree with @sichvoge in this case

>What, in your mind, should be defined as the root RAML? Root RAML file is the the file which was initially requested to be parsed. >some file that's being defined...

According to https://github.com/raml-org/raml-spec/blob/master/versions/raml-10/raml-10.md/#property-declarations and to https://github.com/raml-org/raml-spec/blob/master/versions/raml-10/raml-10.md/#the-any-type following should work: ``` raml #%RAML 1.0 Library types: TypeWithMap: properties: name: string map: properties: //: any ``` Regards, Pavel