My immediate thought is observe the YAGNI principle and only create it if and when you need it. Otherwise, you run the risk of requiring non-interchangeable re-identification if you need required, non-default, fields when the need materializes.
On December 13, 2019, at 9:25 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, The specification doesn't seem to make it entirely clear whether it's allowable for a record to contain no fields (a zero-length array for the fields member). I've found at least one implementation that complains about a record with an empty fields array, and I'm wondering if this is a bug. A record containing no fields is actually quite useful as it can act as a placeholder for a record with any number of extra fields in future evolutions of a schema. What do you think? cheers, rog.
