As 'codegladiator indicated, OpenAPI is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you have an API that cannot be described in OpenAPI, that is a bug in OpenAPI. And per

As 'codegladiator indicated, OpenAPI is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you have an API that cannot be described in OpenAPI, that is a bug in OpenAPI. And personally, I've literally never seen an HTTP-based, non-GraphQL API that cannot be expressed, and fairly easily, in OpenAPI and even in a subset that can generate programmatically "acceptable" to "great" API clients in a variety of languages. Heck, it's not even that hard to make a RPC-based API with XML as its lingua franca work just fine in OpenAPI. Now, you're correct about GraphQL, but it's also apparently not super relevant, as the APIs you're trumpeting on your site are overwhelmingly either RESTful or adjacent to RESTful. But even so? You could pretty easily have vendor extensions (`x-` properties) for GraphQL--ones that in the future maybe even become canonical ones!--in OpenAPI while using it for standard APIs, an approach whose deficiencies you've consistently chosen to retreat from after you state them. This fundamental misapprehension about specification versus description, and the way you dropped your "serverless function schema" claims like a hot rock (and I want to underline that the offer to work to improve OAS wherever it happens to lack is genuine and is work I am very happy to do) and the absolute unwillingness to address any question that touches on your obvious attempts at barriers to entry, frankly, makes you think you're just bullshitting me. I'd like to wish you well, but you have demonstrated to my satisfaction your intent to piss in the public pool for your own benefit. I wish you wouldn't be so bound and determined to do so.