@@ -201,9 +201,7 @@ https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/342.)
201201The vocabulary URI is an opaque value. There is no data that an implementation
202202can reference to identify the keywords defined by the vocabulary. The vocabulary
203203schema _ implies_ this, but scanning a ` properties ` keyword isn't very reliable.
204- Moreover, such a system cannot provide metadata about the keywords. As such, the
205- user must explicitly ensure that the implementation recognizes and supports the
206- vocabulary, which isn't much of an improvement over the current state.
204+ Moreover, such a system cannot provide metadata about the keywords.
207205
208206Having some sort of "vocabulary definition" file could alleviate this.
209207
@@ -214,6 +212,12 @@ anyway. (Such information cannot be gleaned from a vocabulary specification. For
214212example, an implementation can't know what to do with a hypothetical ` minDate `
215213keyword.)
216214
215+ Several ideas have been offeree for this sort of document:
216+ 217+ - https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1523
218+ - https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/1423
219+ - https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/pull/1257
220+ 217221#### Implicit Inclusion of Core Vocabulary
218222
219223Because the Core keywords (the ones that start with ` $ ` ) instruct an
0 commit comments