Skip to content

Conversation

@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Made two minor suggestions. Otherwise, I think this is good to go.

@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member Author

@Relequestual your suggestions add a lot of redundancy ("such" everywhere).

Subschemas of these keywords evaluate the instance completely independently such that the results of one such subschema MUST NOT impact the results of sibling subschemas. As such the subschemas may be applied in any order.

@gregsdennis gregsdennis changed the title resolves #910 - add paragraph describing independence of sibling subschemas add paragraph describing independence of sibling subschemas Nov 19, 2020
@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

@gregsdennis I've modified the second such (😆) instance. I just thought your phrasing was a little verbose and potentially not clearly related to the WHOLE previous section.

@Relequestual Relequestual linked an issue Nov 19, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
gregsdennis and others added 2 commits November 20, 2020 07:23
@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member Author

merge when ready

@Relequestual Relequestual self-requested a review November 24, 2020 12:50
@Relequestual Relequestual merged commit 65de3c9 into master Nov 24, 2020
@Relequestual Relequestual deleted the issue-910-subschema-independence branch November 24, 2020 12:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Section 9.2.1 (*Of keywords) is non-specific about sequencing

3 participants