On fr 4 feb. 2022 15:00, Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] I'm not quite sure that there *is* any ambiguity with > the examples. A JSON object {"type": "record"} without any other > attributes can only be valid if we look at it as a type reference (not > a new RECORD type). Are we allowed to add arbitrary JSON properties > to a type reference? >
No: that would either change the named type, or create a copy with changes (and redefining a named type differently is not allowed). Kind regards, Oscar -- Oscar Westra van Holthe - Kind <[email protected]> >
