Skip to content

rc1 revisions #1046

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 8, 2020
Merged

rc1 revisions #1046

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e256bca
contractions are a little less formal
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
de85e51
unevaluated* is now in its own vocabulary, so move some references ac…
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
328c0b2
it is no longer the evaluator's responsibility to combine annotations
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
af9009b
clarify the requirements to implement the different output formats
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
713c353
soften wording on absoluteKeywordLocation
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
9e96dda
clarify "relative location" wording
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
f21d2b3
capitalize words for emphasis, per RFC 2119
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
8cdaf1a
evaluation does not always begin at a root schema resource
karenetheridge Dec 1, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
79 changes: 41 additions & 38 deletions jsonschema-core.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -656,8 +656,9 @@
<t>
Other keywords may take into account the dynamic scope that
exists during the evaluation of a schema, typically together
with an instance document. The outermost dynamic scope is the
root schema of the schema document in which processing begins.
with an instance document.
The outermost dynamic scope is the schema object at
which processing begins, even if it is not a schema resource root.
The path from this root schema to any particular keyword (that
includes any "$ref" and "$dynamicRef" keywords that may have
been resolved) is considered the keyword's "validation path."
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1632,7 +1633,7 @@
</t>
<t>
When schemas are downloaded,
for example by a generic user-agent that doesn't know until runtime which schemas to download,
for example by a generic user-agent that does not know until runtime which schemas to download,
see <xref target="hypermedia">Usage for Hypermedia</xref>.
</t>
<t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2083,17 +2084,11 @@
"additionalProperties", whose behavior is defined in terms of
"properties" and "patternProperties"
</t>
<t>
"unevaluatedProperties", whose behavior is defined in terms of
annotations from "properties", "patternProperties",
"additionalProperties" and itself
</t>
<t>
"items", whose behavior is defined in terms of "prefixItems"
</t>
<t>
"unevaluatedItems", whose behavior is defined in terms of annotations
from "prefixItems", "items", "contains", and itself
"contains", whose behavior is defined in terms of "minContains"
</t>
</list>
</t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2380,10 +2375,7 @@
</t>
<t>
The annotation result of this keyword is the set of instance
property names matched by this keyword. Annotation results
for "properties" keywords from multiple schemas applied to
the same instance location are combined by taking the union
of the sets.
property names matched by this keyword.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same assertion behavior as
Expand All @@ -2406,10 +2398,7 @@
</t>
<t>
The annotation result of this keyword is the set of instance
property names matched by this keyword. Annotation results
for "patternProperties" keywords from multiple schemas applied to
the same instance location are combined by taking the union
of the sets.
property names matched by this keyword.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same assertion behavior as
Expand All @@ -2436,9 +2425,6 @@
<t>
The annotation result of this keyword is the set of instance
property names validated by this keyword's subschema.
Annotation results for "additionalProperties" keywords from
multiple schemas applied to the same instance location are combined
by taking the union of the sets.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same assertion behavior as
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2521,6 +2507,26 @@
before the next to indicate the same syntax and semantics
as those listed here.
</t>

<section title="Keyword Independence">
<t>
Schema keywords typically operate independently, without
affecting each other's outcomes. However, the keywords in this
vocabulary are notable exceptions:
<list>
<t>
"unevaluatedItems", whose behavior is defined in terms of annotations
from "prefixItems", "items", "contains", and itself
</t>
<t>
"unevaluatedProperties", whose behavior is defined in terms of
annotations from "properties", "patternProperties",
"additionalProperties" and itself
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>

<section title="unevaluatedItems" anchor="unevaluatedItems">
<t>
The value of "unevaluatedItems" MUST be a valid JSON Schema.
Expand All @@ -2530,7 +2536,7 @@
adjacent keywords that apply to the instance location being validated.
Specifically, the annotations from "prefixItems", "items", and "contains",
which can come from those keywords when they are adjacent to the
"unevaluatedItems" keyword. Those two annotations, as well as
"unevaluatedItems" keyword. Those three annotations, as well as
"unevaluatedItems", can also result from any and all adjacent
<xref target="in-place">in-place applicator</xref> keywords.
This includes but is not limited to the in-place applicators
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2599,9 +2605,6 @@
<t>
The annotation result of this keyword is the set of instance
property names validated by this keyword's subschema.
Annotation results for "unevaluatedProperties" keywords from
multiple schemas applied to the same instance location are combined
by taking the union of the sets.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same assertion behavior as
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2648,10 +2651,10 @@
structure that matches the exact structure of the schema.
</t>
</list>
An implementation SHOULD provide at least the "flag", "basic", or "detailed"
An implementation SHOULD provide at least one of the "flag", "basic", or "detailed"
format and MAY provide the "verbose" format. If it provides one or more of the
complex formats, it MUST also provide the "flag" format. Implementations SHOULD
specify in their documentation which formats they support.
"detailed" or "verbose" formats, it MUST also provide the "flag" format.
Implementations SHOULD specify in their documentation which formats they support.
</t>

</section>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2704,7 +2707,7 @@
Note that "absolute" here is in the sense of "absolute filesystem path"
(meaning the complete location) rather than the "absolute-URI"
terminology from RFC 3986 (meaning with scheme but without fragment).
Keyword absolute locations will always have a fragment in order to
Keyword absolute locations will have a fragment in order to
identify the keyword.
</cref>
</t>
Expand All @@ -2716,8 +2719,8 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
</artwork>
</figure>
<t>
This information MAY be omitted only if either the relative location contains
no references or if the schema does not declare an absolute URI as its "$id".
This information MAY be omitted only if either the dynamic scope did not pass
over a reference or if the schema does not declare an absolute URI as its "$id".
</t>
<t>
The JSON key for this information is "absoluteKeywordLocation".
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3083,7 +3086,7 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
<t>
Instances and schemas are both frequently written by untrusted third parties, to be
deployed on public Internet servers.
Validators should take care that the parsing and validating against schemas doesn't consume excessive
Validators should take care that the parsing and validating against schemas does not consume excessive
system resources.
Validators MUST NOT fall into an infinite loop.
</t>
Expand All @@ -3093,7 +3096,7 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
excessive consumption of system resources in such a scenario.
</t>
<t>
Servers MUST ensure that malicious parties can't change the functionality of
Servers MUST ensure that malicious parties cannot change the functionality of
existing schemas by uploading a schema with a pre-existing or very similar "$id".
</t>
<t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3599,9 +3602,9 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
behavior is undefined.
</t>
<t>
Vocabulary authors should provide a meta-schema that validates the
Vocabulary authors SHOULD provide a meta-schema that validates the
expected usage of the vocabulary's keywords on their own. Such meta-schemas
should not forbid additional keywords, and must not forbid any
SHOULD not forbid additional keywords, and MUST not forbid any
keywords from the Core vocabulary.
</t>
<t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3644,10 +3647,10 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
keywords in that vocabulary, is shown after the main example meta-schema.
</t>
<t>
The main example meta-schema also restricts the usage of the Applicator
The main example meta-schema also restricts the usage of the Unevaluated
vocabulary by forbidding the keywords prefixed with "unevaluated", which
are particularly complex to implement. This does not change the semantics
or set of keywords defined by the Applicator vocabulary. It just ensures
or set of keywords defined by the other vocabularies. It just ensures
that schemas using this meta-schema that attempt to use the keywords
prefixed with "unevaluated" will fail validation against this meta-schema.
</t>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3682,7 +3685,7 @@ https://example.com/schemas/common#/$defs/count/minimum
{"$ref": "https://example.com/meta/example-vocab",
],
"patternProperties": {
"^unevaluated.*$": false
"^unevaluated": false
},
"properties": {
"localKeyword": {
Expand Down