That sounds right to me. To be clear, the schema in question here is the writer's. A reader schema which did not have "c" could read this, dropping the "c" values from the writer's schema.
Doug On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Francis Galiegue <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Pankaj Shroff <[email protected]> wrote: >> That doesn't seem the case specially because if you define a record with a >> bunch of optional fields, then you would end up with an empty object (or >> rather an object with null values for its fields). Am I misunderstanding >> your question? >> > > OK, I have probably misworded the question. Let's say I have a record > defining fields "a" and "b". For simplicity, their permissible values > are ints. > > As I understand it: > > { "a": 1 } > > is not legal since "b" is not provided. > > This: > > { "a": 1, "b": 2, "c": 3 } > > is not legal either since "c" is not defined. > > BUT: { "a": 1 } can be legal IF a default value is provided for "b". > > Am I getting this right, partially right, completely wrong? > > -- > Francis Galiegue, [email protected] > JSON Schema in Java: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com
