Replace '$defs' with 'definitions' in draft 6,7

[santhosh-tekuri]

in draft 6 and 7, anchors are not looked up in $defs

[Julian]

Thanks! There's two more of these in id.json. Mind fixing there too? Appreciated.

[santhosh-tekuri]

i was testing my validator https://github.com/santhosh-tekuri/jsonschema with latest changes, and noticed that those two tests were failings.

other tests having $defs were passing, because they were using explicit json pointer

if you say yes, i will update the rest of them also.

[Julian]

Ah indeed, ok, they're not strictly wrong, but still a bit stylistically retcon'ed, but fair enough, will merge these as is to fix the bug and we can change those after. Thanks for the fix!

[handrews]

@Julian starting with draft-07 there is wording around whether the reference target is a schema. In 2019-09 the spec explicitly notes that referencing something that cannot be determined to be a schema has behavior that is either undefined or implementation-specific, depending on the exact circumstances.

In draft-07, the wording is a bit more ambiguous:

If the resulting URI identifies a schema within the current document,
or within another schema document that has been made available to the
implementation, then that schema SHOULD be used automatically.

But it definitely implies that a referencing URI might not identify a schema, and therefore might not be dereferenced.

So this is more than a stylistic concern, at least for the draft-07 tests. Draft-06's language still implied that the reference target would be treated as a schema, so the exact keyword there is arguably stylistic. But from draft-07 on that is not the case and only definitions (for draft-07) or $defs (for later) is a truly valid test.

[handrews]

In 2019-09 and later, definitions is reserved for compatibility, but implementations are not required to support it, so mandatory tests would need to use $defs and optional compatibility tests could be added for definitions.

[Julian]

Are those comments meant for this PR? Or are you talking about what we were talking about at the end, i.e. #583?

Regardless, sounds like you're agreeing with the merges?

[handrews]

@Julian two PRs with the same title? er... I'm confused about something... but I was responding to:

Ah indeed, ok, they're not strictly wrong, but still a bit stylistically retcon'ed

Which I interpreted (or misinterpreted) to be a comment that it's not strictly wrong to use $defs with draft-06 and draft-07. That's correct for draft-06, but arguably not for draft-07. But it's kinda debatable even for draft-07 so perhaps I shouldn't have commented.