You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I agree with the comment in the first post, it is too confusing; may I suggest for draft 5 or 6, JSON Schema goes back to one specification document with instance validation and format types inside it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
zeth
changed the title
JSON Schema extended types: ISO 8601 date
Format types into main specification
Nov 9, 2015
zeth
changed the title
Format types into main specification
Instance validation/Format types into main specification
Nov 9, 2015
Just to be contrary ;-) as someone who started using JSON Schema with draft 4, I don't find the three-document approach confusing, and in fact appreciate having the aspects of the system split up in that way to produce smaller, more cohesive documents.
I know a few people weren't too thrilled about splitting the documents up, but the way I re-arranged it I think makes a lot more sense than the three documents did before, and as far as I can tell people think this makes sense:
JSON Schema core defines the application/schema+json media type and the bare minimum of how to handle it
Additional documents define vocabularies that you can use in an application/schema+json document
So this is much more modular than it is in draft-04.
I'll hopefully publish a draft soon here, and if it still doesn't make as much sense let's investigate if merging some of the new drafts back together helps things.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/format/json-schema/WInNIGWSL4U/UtTl29b-3GIJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/json-schema/format/json-schema/74XLt7R4ISE/FPOnAh6rq_UJ
I agree with the comment in the first post, it is too confusing; may I suggest for draft 5 or 6, JSON Schema goes back to one specification document with instance validation and format types inside it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: