seems good to me.

Thanks @emmanuelmathot, I just updated the changelog.
Should I also update already the version number to 2.0.0 or that will be done at release time by you or other maintainers?

We will prepare a PR for the v2 release.

Hey, @emmanuelmathot! I'm working on implementing the Render extension in pystac (PR) and noticed that this change moving the renders field into Item properties hasn't been released yet. When do you think this might get released? This change better aligns the extension spec with the Item spec conventions for additional metadata and I'd like the implementation to follow this convention as well.

I have a second thought on this one. Initially, we put renders at top level because it is not a metadata of the items but an 'offering' of the item.
@bmcandr @giorgiobasile, is it problematic of having it at top level for the pystac extension?

Hi @emmanuelmathot, I don't have strong opinions about it, but I'd mention that I proposed this change back then because I was unable to store the renders object using the stac-fastapi transactional API.
We had a discussion here about the issue and how to tackle it, and resolved that the best way forward was to propose the extension change.

But if that changes, I don't see any other blocker - from my limited knowledge - unless other tools may need to be adapted to accept item-level custom fields.

Thanks for the quick response @emmanuelmathot and additional context @giorgiobasile!

Are there any other extension specifications that place additional metadata at the top-level on Items? I spot-checked specs and didn't find any. While the Item spec does not restrict additional top-level fields, it looks like the recommended convention of placing additional metadata within Item properties has been informally adopted as a standard practice.

FWIW stac-fastapi-pgstac (maybe all stac-fastapi implementations?) still does not retain additional top-level fields when creating Items. I'm sure it is possible to idiomatically support top-level extension metadata in pystac, but I think it would be the first/only extension to operate this way. I've asked the pystac maintainer for their thoughts.

Are there any other extension specifications that place additional metadata at the top-level on Items? I spot-checked specs and didn't find any. While the Item spec does not restrict additional top-level fields, it looks like the recommended convention of placing additional metadata within Item properties has been informally adopted as a standard practice.

I am not aware of other extension using top level fields.

I think the best is probably to go forward with this change.