Tools like FDL Viewer are now rejecting my valid 2.0 FDLs on the grounds that they don't comply with FDL 2.0.1 even though these FDLs clearly state that they are 2.0 in the version object (i.e. "version": {"major": 2, "minor": 0}).
Since the new schema shares the same value for the version object, there is no way for a machine to know how to validate an FDL. I think it's important that any changes to the schema result in an increment of the version value. If you really want to introduce a second minor version then the schema should be adding this as a new attribute to the version object.
Tools like FDL Viewer are now rejecting my valid 2.0 FDLs on the grounds that they don't comply with FDL 2.0.1 even though these FDLs clearly state that they are 2.0 in the
versionobject (i.e."version": {"major": 2, "minor": 0}).Since the new schema shares the same value for the
versionobject, there is no way for a machine to know how to validate an FDL. I think it's important that any changes to the schema result in an increment of the version value. If you really want to introduce a second minor version then the schema should be adding this as a new attribute to theversionobject.