It's a terrible & self-interested & small-minded design philosophy making awful trade-offs. It's an actively dangerous way of building, to the exclusion of allo

It's a terrible & self-interested & small-minded design philosophy making awful trade-offs. It's an actively dangerous way of building, to the exclusion of allowing possibility, and for false gain ("no new major versions but it will totally change maybe & no one else has freedom"). I use strong terms because this breaks so many internet ethos, logos, & pathos. Picking the narrowest path should be warded & hazarded against in strong terms. This reaction is emotional because it's terrible terrible choices. Postel's Law[1] has come under fire from some pretty conservative-minded viewsets (and frankly I'be rarely been persuaded by the angst against permit-if-you-can), but this is a next level assault on loose-coupling, a stark new frontier in reserving almost all possibility for yourself. My description while strong is accurate in many ways: this is brutally narrow. This is an extremeist perspective that json schema is embarking towards, snubbing basic protocol design & rejecting a non-harmful extensibility that cost them nothing (besides needing to tick a major version to make a major change). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle