Per opws/opws-dataset#146 (comment):
I don't want to force this on validation by default, but I do want to have it be part of accepting a pull request.
Right now, it is forced on validation by default (to be opted out of via --loose).
And I kind of feel like that's the correct behavior, honestly, considering this tool's use case: to allow authors to ensure that they've written a profile correctly. If they've written it incorrectly, by using the wrong name for a field, then --loose is not going to catch the bug, and the validator's default behavior has been basically useless.
It's not like this is saying that extended profiles are invalid - they still match the schema, after all. It's just that validating properties outside the schema is outside the scope of this validator, so, if they're present, yeah, we reject it.
Per opws/opws-dataset#146 (comment):
Right now, it is forced on validation by default (to be opted out of via
--loose).And I kind of feel like that's the correct behavior, honestly, considering this tool's use case: to allow authors to ensure that they've written a profile correctly. If they've written it incorrectly, by using the wrong name for a field, then
--looseis not going to catch the bug, and the validator's default behavior has been basically useless.It's not like this is saying that extended profiles are invalid - they still match the schema, after all. It's just that validating properties outside the schema is outside the scope of this validator, so, if they're present, yeah, we reject it.