draft-06 / draft-07 support?

[handrews]

Hello from the JSON Schema spec project!

Does this project intend to add support for the recent drafts 6 and/or 7? I'm happy to answer any questions about the new (and forthcoming) drafts.
http://json-schema.org/specification.html

We will at some point be re-organizing the implementation lists to promote implementations supporting at least draft-06 and make draft-04-and-older-only implementations less visible.

[andreineculau]

Thanks for the ping, Henry!
As a prerequisite, i think we need to close #53 and #55 before moving forward with more standards. That is on me.
Otherwise, a PR is most appreciated. I personally am not using any of the new features so I'm not committed. But that won't stop me from reviewing and accepting any PR that handles a new json schema standard with a comprehensive test suite.

For reference for anyone that wants and can put in time for a PR, are there any simple to follow "diffs" i.e. we added x, removed y, changed/clarified the definition of z? That would probably speed up anyone's efforts.

[handrews]

@andreineculau sounds good. Wish I could make a PR for this myself but I don't know Erlang and the spec work sucks up all of my JSON Schema time anyway :-)

Regarding #53 and #55, here are some draft-08 proposals that are relevant and may affect how you want to finish these:

• Move "definitions" to core (as "$defs"?) json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#512 (definitions becomes $defs in the core, so don't treat "definitions" as a special case in A bit different approach to external validators plus validation against definition in a schema  #53)
• Keywords alongside of $ref json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#523 ($ref as delegation, allow keywords alongside $ref)
• Need more details of annotation collection json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#530 (annotation collection- builds on the annotation collection added in draft-07, and seems relevant to "we look for annotated schema elements and perform whatever we want as an extra validation.")

Also, multi-vocabulary support should be relevant to:

we are only interested in providing an extra layer of validation not tied to jesse core library not replacing by a custom validator

as we are working on ways to add layers of validation, define alternate vocabularies entirely, restrict vocabularies, and do all of that in a machine-comprehensible way. Any feedback on the vocabulary support ideas would be very much appreciated, particularly if you are working on custom validation extensions!

[handrews]

@andreineculau the closest to diffs are the release migration notes:

http://json-schema.org/specification.html#migrating-from-older-drafts

[jadeallenx]

Man I wish I had time to work on this. I'd love to get Jesse up to speed on draft 7/8

[handrews]

@mrallen1 / @andreineculau if you're actively interested in attracting contributors for this, I could put this implementation on the "modern" page with a link to this issue. I've started doing that for implementations that are active and interested in modernizing, but just not able to move on new drafts due to resource constraints.

[jadeallenx]

I'm just a nobody in this project but that'd be pretty cool imo. I could help with something but I don't think I can do everything that would be needed.

[seriyps]

So, draft-06 have been just merged #108