> what makes their content authorative.

Nothing, it’s just relatively widely known and used (e.g. for VS Code and Windows Terminal config files, which I expect a lot of people to have experience with), with relatively good library support in a wide selection of languages. Although I should mention that most of the libraries are stuck on old versions, and the versions they’re stuck on are all over the place: https://json-schema.org/implementations.html

It's a horrible mess, made worse by the several years in which OpenAPI defined their own "dialect" of json-schema for their data schemas which was incompatible with the non-OpenAPI variant of json-schema, so you get libraries that support both, or support only a certain version of each, and because different versions tend to be completely incompatible with each other, you might run into lots of problems if you have more than one language consuming schemas, or even the same language but using different libraries due to transitive dependencies... it's just terrible, just use XML if you need a schema.

The language is a godforsaken monstrosity, but if you only have to write it once for some non-critical validation task it’s acceptable. For instance, I use JSON schema to (optionally) validate some generated JSON data which is fed into a web app as a JSON module. I also generated the TS spec for it from the JSON schema (although writing the TS spec by hand would have been 10–100x easier than writing the JSON schema). XML is obviously not suitable here — TypeScript doesn’t have XML modules.

json-schema.org is the place where the JSON Schema working group at IETF publishes its work.

They also publish on IETF infrastructure. Example: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bhutton-json-sch...

Ben Hutton who is the author of the blog post is also the editor of the latest publlished IETF drafts. https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/[email protected]

Do you need some more authoritative source?

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bhutton-json-sch...

That's an expired draft on the informational track. Informational track isn't supposed to be authoritative; drafts even less, let alone expired drafts. Having submitted an Internet-Draft to IETF is an indicator of seriousness, not authority, unless you get it approved on the standards track.

Sounds like a candidate for an "About us" section of the website.

Do you mean the article or the specification?