diff --git a/jsonschema-validation.xml b/jsonschema-validation.xml
index 40e4e256..1484c114 100644
--- a/jsonschema-validation.xml
+++ b/jsonschema-validation.xml
@@ -549,6 +549,11 @@
utilize this vocabulary as if its URI were present with a value of false.
See the Implementation Requirements below for details.
+
+ The standard core and validation meta-schema
+ includes this vocabulary in its "$vocabulary" keyword with a value of false
+ since implementations are not required to provide support for this keyword.
+
The current URI for this vocabulary, known as the Format vocabulary, is:
<https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-11/vocab/format>.
@@ -563,60 +568,50 @@
The "format" keyword functions as an annotation, and optionally as an assertion.
- This is due to the keyword's history, and is not in line with current
+ This is due to the keyword's history, this is not in line with current
keyword design principles. In order to manage this ambiguity, the
"format" keyword is defined in its own separate vocabulary, as noted above.
- The true or false value of the vocabulary declaration governs the implementation
- requirements necessary to process a schema that uses "format", and the
- behaviors on which schema authors can rely.
+
+
+ Regardless of the boolean value of the vocabulary declaration,
+ an implementation that can evaluate "format" as an assertion MUST provide
+ options to enable and disable such evaluation. By default, these options
+ MUST default to annotation collection. The manifestation of options is
+ implemenation-specific and not covered by this specification.
+
+
+ An implementation MUST adhere to its configured behavior at all times. There
+ is currently no mechanism defined by this specification which allows this
+ configuration to be defined by the schema.
- The value of format MUST be collected as an annotation, if the implementation
- supports annotation collection. This enables application-level validation when
+ The value of "format" MUST be collected as an annotation (if the implementation
+ supports annotation collection). This enables application-level validation when
schema validation is unavailable or inadequate.
-
-
- This requirement is not affected by the boolean value of the vocabulary
- declaration, nor by the configuration of "format"'s assertion
- behavior described in the next section.
- Requiring annotation collection even when the vocabulary is declared with
- a value of false is atypical, but necessary to ensure that the best
- practice of performing application-level validation is possible even when
- assertion evaluation is not implemented. Since "format" has always been
- a part of this specification, requiring implementations to be aware of it
- even with a false vocabulary declaration is deemed to not be a burden.
+ Together with the requirement of collecting unknown keywords as annotations
+ and the "format" vocabulary being declared with a "false" value, the
+ net effect is that the behavior of this keyword is unchanged whether the
+ implementation understands the "format" vocabulary or not. If a meta-schema
+ were to declare this vocabulary with a "true" value and the implementation
+ doesn't understand it, the "$vocabulary" rule would be invoked and the
+ implementation would be required halt validation.
- Regardless of the boolean value of the vocabulary declaration,
- an implementation that can evaluate "format" as an assertion MUST provide
- options to enable and disable such evaluation. The assertion evaluation
- behavior when the option is not explicitly specified depends on
- the vocabulary declaration's boolean value.
-
-
-
- When implementing this entire specification, this vocabulary MUST
- be supported with a value of false (but see details below),
- and MAY be supported with a value of true.
-
-
-
- When the vocabulary is declared with a value of false, an implementation:
+ When the implementation is configured to treat the "format" keyword as an
+ assertion, it:
- MUST NOT evaluate "format" as an assertion unless it is explicitly
- configured to do so;
-
-
- SHOULD provide an implementation-specific best effort validation
- for each format attribute defined below;
+ MUST implement syntactic validation for all format attributes defined
+ in this specification, and for any additional format attributes that
+ it recognizes, such that there exist possible instance values
+ of the correct type that will fail validation.
MAY choose to implement validation of any or all format attributes
@@ -626,30 +621,6 @@
SHOULD document its level of support for validation.
-
- This matches the current reality of implementations, which provide
- widely varying levels of validation, including no validation at all,
- for some or all format attributes. It is also designed to encourage
- relying only on the annotation behavior and performing semantic
- validation in the application, which is the recommended best practice.
-
-
-
-
- When the vocabulary is declared with a value of true, an implementation
- that supports this form of the vocabulary:
-
-
- MUST evaluate "format" as an assertion unless it is explicitly
- configured not to do so;
-
-
- MUST implement syntactic validation for all format attributes defined
- in this specification, and for any additional format attributes that
- it recognizes, such that there exist possible instance values
- of the correct type that will fail validation.
-
-
The requirement for minimal validation of format attributes is intentionally
vague and permissive, due to the complexity involved in many of the attributes.
Note in particular that the requirement is limited to syntactic checking; it is
@@ -666,20 +637,20 @@
an "@" is clearly not a valid email address, and an "email" or "hostname"
containing characters outside of 7-bit ASCII is likewise clearly invalid.
+
+ This matches the current reality of implementations, which provide
+ widely varying levels of validation, including no validation at all,
+ for some or all format attributes. It is also designed to encourage
+ relying only on the annotation behavior and performing semantic
+ validation in the application, which is the recommended best practice.
+
+
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations use a common parsing library for each format,
or a well-known regular expression. Implementations SHOULD clearly document
how and to what degree each format attribute is validated.
-
- The standard core and validation meta-schema
- includes this vocabulary in its "$vocabulary" keyword with a value of false,
- since by default implementations are not required to support this keyword
- as an assertion. Supporting the format vocabulary with a value of true is
- understood to greatly increase code size and in some cases execution time,
- and will not be appropriate for all implementations.
-