Could you fix merge conflicts?

@eirnym this will happen once 1.3 is released (and thus the feature freeze is in effect) and i find the time to rebase or to rewrite, it's not a trivial task. also, i want to open a discussion on the question of the extent of type annotations.

what is your particular interest to ask for an update? maybe there's another way to serve that.

I'd like to help you with as many changes there make sense. Also I'd like to see a few additional features asked here and there like "user documentation" for each element inside the schema itself and checking a schema object.

Currently, I remove doc keys to pass them forward and checking a schema object by checking a dummy document.

Also I want to try to find out if it's hard to merge the new version without rebasing and breaking anything.

This library is quite sensitive for my work, so I have a motivation to support it.

I opened a pull request to your branch with the merge, please, verify it.

Also I'd like to see a few additional features asked here and there like "user documentation" for each element inside the schema itself and checking a schema object.

please open separate issues for each proposal.

Also I want to try to find out if it's hard to merge the new version without rebasing and breaking anything.

i certainly won't hinder you from giving it a shot.

having that said, i don't think the type annotations will sustain in the extent as i did here. but they can also be (partly) removed later.

This library is quite sensitive for my work, so I have a motivation to support it.

everyone is welcome. i'd have to review all the planning to give some practical advice what should be addressed in what order. maybe you could look through the items in the ROADMAP.md and post in the corresponing issues that you would like to work on.

Closing in favor of #497.