Commit 94170f5

authored

Merge pull request #1055 from Relequestual/Fix/unevaluated-extensions-1047

Fix incorrect stipulation on keyword ordering for unevaluated* keywords.

2 parents 593bf0b + 8744c9a commit 94170f5Copy full SHA for 94170f5

File tree

-2

lines changed

-2

lines changed

Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -2549,7 +2549,7 @@`
`2549`	`2549`	`This means that "prefixItems", "items", "contains", and all in-place`
`2550`	`2550`	`applicators MUST be evaluated before this keyword can be evaluated.`
`2551`	`2551`	`Authors of extension keywords MUST NOT define an in-place applicator`
`2552`		`- that would need to be evaluated before this keyword.`
	`2552`	`+ that would need to be evaluated after this keyword.`
`2553`	`2553`	`</t>`
`2554`	`2554`	`<t>`
`2555`	`2555`	`If the "unevaluatedItems" subschema is applied to any`
`@@ -2594,7 +2594,7 @@`
`2594`	`2594`	`This means that "properties", "patternProperties", "additionalProperties",`
`2595`	`2595`	`and all in-place applicators MUST be evaluated before this keyword can`
`2596`	`2596`	`be evaluated. Authors of extension keywords MUST NOT define an in-place`
`2597`		`- applicator that would need to be evaluated before this keyword.`
	`2597`	`+ applicator that would need to be evaluated after this keyword.`
`2598`	`2598`	`</t>`
`2599`	`2599`	`<t>`
`2600`	`2600`	`The annotation result of this keyword is the set of instance`

Comments

(0)