Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 24, 2023. It is now read-only.

Custom Annotations Will Continue #31

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023
Merged

Conversation

gregsdennis
Copy link
Member

@gregsdennis gregsdennis commented Apr 4, 2023

Depends on json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#1394

(I don't think we have the PR dependencies action here. Maybe I should add it at the org level. Can I do that? Does that work?) (It works now 😉🎉)

@gregsdennis gregsdennis changed the title added post: custom annotation will continue Custom Annotations Will Continue Apr 4, 2023
@cloudflare-workers-and-pages
Copy link

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Apr 4, 2023

Deploying with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: 483baf6
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://2ac70bec.blog-cie.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://gregsdennis-supporting-svas.blog-cie.pages.dev

View logs

Copy link
Member

@jdesrosiers jdesrosiers left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great! Thanks for writing it up.


This option defines a new Core keyword such as `$ignored` that would hold an array of the names of keywords to ignore. This would allow schema authors to explicitly define the keywords they wanted to use.

Like alternative #1, this has the problem that JSON Schema doesn't currently have the mechanisms to perform the kind of meta-schema validation that would be required, as well as the same scoping issues. It's also possible that a schema author could ignore a keyword that would later be added to the spec or some vocabulary, meaning that it _shouldn't_ be ignored, resulting in surprisingly wrong validations.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"surprisingly wrong" == "compatibility violation". That might be worth mentioning.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. I'll try to work that in.

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Well done write up! Thank you!
I'll merge and publish!
Please coordinate with @benjagm for social postings =D

@Relequestual Relequestual merged commit 50efd51 into main Apr 6, 2023
@Relequestual Relequestual deleted the gregsdennis/supporting-svas branch April 6, 2023 13:03
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants