TSC Vote - The future of `format`

[gregsdennis]

json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#1520 describes the current state of the format keyword and proposes a change that will technically be breaking but should also align the keyword's behavior with user expectation.

In summary:

• format is an assertion, always.
• Implementations SHOULD support format with the defined values.
• Implementations MAY support others, but only by explicit config.
• Implementations MUST refuse to process a schema that contains an unsupported format.

I have created PR json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#1553 to reflect these changes, but the TSC should vote on this change.

• 👍 In favor of this change as-is
• 😕 In favor but with a modification (please elaborate in a comment)
• 👎 Not in favor at all

[Julian]

I am -1 personally on all backwards incompatible changes, but curious to see what others' opinions are.

[mwadams]

I'm really struggling to choose between strict backwards compatibility (ie 👎), an explicit acknowledgement of the opt-in-to-backwards compatibility (😕 and something like Implementations MUST support annotations for unknown formats by explicit config only) or the devil-may-care 👍

Thinking about a user base which is already splintered between the "format is asserted" and "format is annotated" drafts vocabularies, I am tending towards 😕 or 👍 and will tentatively vote 😕 - implementations MUST have a back-compat mode - with no real conviction!

(This leads me to some thoughts about the difference between implementation config and vocabs and whether this should all be revisited when vocabs are nailed down).

[gregsdennis]

Thinking about a user base which is already splintered between the "format is asserted" and "format is annotated" drafts... - @mwadams

There are no "format is asserted" drafts. format has always been an annotation.

[mwadams]

Thinking about a user base which is already splintered between the "format is asserted" and "format is annotated" drafts... - @mwadams

There are no "format is asserted" drafts. format has always been an annotation.

Apologies, I'm confusing the optional tests with the specs again! [Edited above to refer to vocabularies for posterity]

[jviotti]

I don't like breaking changes either, but I agree with @gregsdennis that users do expect this. It is such a common source of confusion that I'm 👍 for fixing it