v3.0: set up schema maintenance

[ralfhandl]

Prepare development branch for v3.0 schema maintenance:

• create branch v3.0-dev-wip - diff to dev
• delete src/oas.md - we do not plan a 3.0.5 spec release
  • otherwise: v3.0: start 3.0.5 #5094
• delete src/schemas/validation/*
• move _archive_/v3.0/schemas/schema.yaml and accompanying README.md to src/schemas/validation/
• move test-related files from _archive_/v3.0/schemas/ to tests/
• make tests work and pass
• refactor tests to use same tools as the v3.1 tests
• test schema publishing workflow - also works for 3.0
• adjust selected 3.1 pass/fail test cases to increase schema coverage
• rename branch v3.0-dev-wip to v3.0-dev (or squash-merge it into a branch freshly created from dev)

[handrews]

@ralfhandl we have not resolved #4865 regarding a 3.0.5 or errata, and I am still concerned about 3.0.4 misleading tooling developers and complicating the upgrade path. We should not do anything to preclude a 3.0.5 at this time.

[lornajane]

I don't think we should commit to maintenance for EOL branches.

[handrews]

I'm still not giving up on fixing the accidental but egregious errors (giving the completely wrong instructions on handling URI percent-encoding in header parameters, for example, in ways that will cause tooling incompatibilities) in 3.0.4.

[handrews]

@lornajane @ralfhandl of course if we solve the 3.0.4 issues with errata instead of a 3.0.5, we could hot-patch the errata links on main rather than having a v3.0-dev (as we could, in theory, hot-patch a schema fix somehow if we want to). Anyway, that debate belongs in #4865, I just replied here because @lornajane brought up the broader philosophical point here.

[ralfhandl]

I think we should enable @karenetheridge to fix bugs in the 3.0 schema.

I do not want to preclude a 3.0.5 spec release, nor do I want to encourage it.

Having no spec source file in the 3.0 schema maintenance branch seems a good middle ground that allows both possible futures.

[handrews]

@lornajane @ralfhandl let's take this broader discussion to #4865. I will write an updated summary of my position there.