Correct some spelling/grammar mistakes

Author: adamvoss

draft-06/json-hyper-schema-migration-faq.md

@@ -44,11 +44,11 @@ While `"targetSchema"` did not change its meaning in either recent draft, it has
 
 Due to draft-04 emphasizing individual HTTP methods as `"method"` values, many users interpreted `"targetSchema"` as a hint of the response to the method in `"method"`.  This was never correct; all drafts define this keyword as describing the representation of the target resource, which appears as a response to HTTP GET, but may or may not appear in other responses.
 
-Draft-06 clarfies this usage and provides guidance on its use with different HTTP methods.  This includes using `"targetSchema"` as a request description for PUT and PATCH.  With draft-04, many users used `"schema"` to describe PUT and PATCH requests which is not needed.
+Draft-06 clarifies this usage and provides guidance on its use with different HTTP methods.  This includes using `"targetSchema"` as a request description for PUT and PATCH.  With draft-04, many users used `"schema"` to describe PUT and PATCH requests which is not needed.
 
 However, see also [#296](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/296) for a proposal for hinting at "Accept-Patch", which is needed to properly use `"targetSchema"` with HTTP PATCH.
 
-### Q: What are key issues under consideraton for draft-07?
+### Q: What are key issues under consideration for draft-07?
 
 There are a number of relatively concrete proposals, although it is unlikely that all will be resolved in draft-07
 
@@ -112,6 +112,6 @@ A: Pick a proposal such as [`"allow"`](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-s
 
 ### Q: If `"targetSchema"` is not the response, how do I describe responses?
 
-A: You should have hyper-schemas for your various success and error responses, but connecting them to links is is more of a documentation question than a usage question:  each response will indicate its own schema, so you don't need to know it in advance at runtime.
+A: You should have hyper-schemas for your various success and error responses, but connecting them to links is more of a documentation question than a usage question: each response will indicate its own schema, so you don't need to know it in advance at runtime.
 
-There has never been a Hyper-Schema keyword to explicitly associate responses with operations such as HTTP methods.  The use cases for this seem to be about generating API documentation, so this is most likely a candidate for a [JSON Schema API Documentation vocabluary](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/136).
+There has never been a Hyper-Schema keyword to explicitly associate responses with operations such as HTTP methods.  The use cases for this seem to be about generating API documentation, so this is most likely a candidate for a [JSON Schema API Documentation vocabulary](https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/136).

draft-06/json-schema-migration-faq.md

@@ -42,15 +42,15 @@ While not technically a change, the behavior of the `"uri"` format was not clear
 
 When a relative path, fragment, or any other style of URI Reference (per RFC 3986) is allowable, use `"uri-reference"`.
 
-Implementations offering a translation from draft-04 to draft-06 may want to offer an option to convert `"uri"` formats to `"uri-reference"`, although any such option should be disable by default for strict conformance.
+Implementations offering a translation from draft-04 to draft-06 may want to offer an option to convert `"uri"` formats to `"uri-reference"`, although any such option should be disabled by default for strict conformance.
 
 ### Q: What happened to draft-05?
 
-The draft-05 core and validation specifications were intended to be more clear and readible rewrites of draft-04, to give us a strong base for draft-06 changes.  Implementors should **not** implement or advertise support for "draft-05".
+The draft-05 core and validation specifications were intended to be more clear and readable rewrites of draft-04, to give us a strong base for draft-06 changes.  Implementors should **not** implement or advertise support for "draft-05".
 
 Implementations that supported "draft-05" by implementing proposals from right after the publication of draft-04 should either remove that support or give it a different name to avoid confusion.
 
-### Q: What happened to all of the discussions around re-using schemas with `"additionalProperties"`?
+### Q: What happened to all the discussions around re-using schemas with `"additionalProperties"`?
 
 There are several competing proposals for making the re-use of schemas that set `"additionalProperties"` to something other than `true`.  Most people specifically care about the case where it is `false`, but the same behavior occurs with any non-`true` value.
 
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ The difficulty is that if you attempt to do this:
 }
 ```
 
-validation will always fail for any non-empty object instance.  `"additionalProperties"` only knows about immediately adjacent `"properties"` and `"patternProperties"`, in order to ensure that each subschema means the same thing whether it is being used with another subschema or on its own.
+Validation will always fail for any non-empty object instance.  `"additionalProperties"` only knows about immediately adjacent `"properties"` and `"patternProperties"`, in order to ensure that each subschema means the same thing whether it is being used with another subschema or on its own.
 
 So in this example, if the instance has a "bar" property, it will fail the first subschema because "bar" is not "foo".  If it has a "foo" property, it will fail the second subschema because "foo" is not "bar".  And any other property will fail both schemas.
 
@@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ This will allow an object with either "foo" or "bar" or both, but will fail vali
 
 It does require duplicating the names, and the awkward use of both an `"allOf"` and `"anyOf"`, but it is less repetition than other options, and can be re-used fairly robustly even if the "foo" and "bar" schemas are in separate files managed by a different person or organization.
 
-_*TODO:* Link to all of the discussions about other use cases and proposed solutions._
+_*TODO:* Link to all the discussions about other use cases and proposed solutions._
 
-### Q: What are key issues under consideraton for draft-07?
+### Q: What are key issues under consideration for draft-07?
 
 We are just starting to consider what to prioritize for the next draft.