Shawn Silverman

Should I file another issue requesting that the concept of regexes being anchored be consolidated?

Throwing thoughts in: 1. There's "terminal" and "non-terminal" validation results. Maybe "terminal" results are the only ones that get into the "basic" output. 2. "Annotations" and "validation results" aren't the...

Regarding schemas that are `true` and `false`, why do we need an extra level in the location (re. the "$false" mention above)? The parent is enough to tell the schema...

Some more food for thought: Instead of calling the error output locations "keywords", why not just use "schemaLocation" and "absoluteSchemaLocation" instead? This way, we won't get stuck on these locations...

I'll add: The current $anchor character set is `[-A-Za-z0-9.:_]` and the URI fragment character set is `[-A-Za-z0-9._~!$&'()*+,;=:@/?]`. It leaves out `[~!$&'()*+,;=@/?]`.

I'm not finding any references in section 5 that talk about restricting a fragment's character set, including in the referenced RFCs and W3C documents. There's references to XML names and...

I'll see if I can come up with a concise PR. @handrews can you assign this to me? It looks like I'm not on this particular team.

Let me clarify with some cases. Which of the following "encode a fractional part"? 1. `"a_number": 1.0`: Ambiguous, this is _JSON-encoded_ to have a `.0` suffix and hence a zero-valued...

> I thought the 2019-09 spec made it clear that what mattered was how the value was _encoded as a json string_. That is, `"a number": 1.0` is _not_ an...

TLDR: I point to this: **"A fraction part is a decimal point followed by one or more digits."** here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-6. ".0" is _very explicity_ a "fractional part". To have otherwise...