Gregsdennis/explicit annotations #1387
Conversation
jsonschema-core.xml
Outdated
| Consequently, the "@" symbol is reserved for this purpose, and | ||
| extension vocabularies which define keywords that start with "@" | ||
| MUST define them as annotation-only keywords. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should allow vocabularies to define @ keywords. @ should explicitly mean that it's an unknown keyword. It's at best confusing to allow vocabularies to define keywords that looks exactly like non-vocabulary keywords.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought it might be nice for a vocab to be able to still define a collection of related annotations. I don't think it hurts anything. It might help compatibility a well.
Think moving from random annotations to collecting them into a vocab: the schema wouldn't need to change, but you can update the metaschema.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's move this conversation back to the discussion. It seems we have more to work out. https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/329#discussioncomment-5273278
I don't think there's any conflict in doing this first. It's an unnecessary feature until unknown keywords are removed, but I don't think it creates any inconsistencies.
I could take a stab at it. |
gregsdennis
force-pushed
the
gregsdennis/explicit-annotations
branch
from
c8c669c to
01c8327
Compare
awwright
left a comment
awwright
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This language is good but I have a different suggestion for how to organize the sections; I'm going to propose to rewrite the "JSON Schema Objects and Keywords" section, and add requirements on how to classify keywords there.
Also as I pointed out in json-schema-org/community#356 I object to the x- prefix because that implies something specific about who is doing the naming of the keyword, rather than the behavior of the keyword as intended. But this is a minor bikeshedding issue.
Do you have an objection to adding this now and reorganizing in another PR? Seems like rewriting entire sections is beyond the scope of this change. |
I don't think that I can rightly add the stuff about
@keywords without first disallowing unknown keywords. But that's a big job.