Re: Use of Optional vs OPTIONAL

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Be careful even with MAY.  The sentence is clear but RFC2119 is mostly
about what implementers MAY or MUST do, so even that usage might be
interpreted as permissiveness with regard to implementing the function.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Rich Salz <rsalz@caveosystems.com>@[161.58.16.59] on 01/25/2001 12:49:30 PM

Sent by:  rsalz@[161.58.16.59]


To:   "Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>
cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  Re: Use of Optional vs OPTIONAL



Another possibility (that might be less sensitive to typography) is
define the element and then add a sentence like "The message originator
MAY omit this element."