[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Use of Optional vs OPTIONAL
It looks to me like we should follow RFC 2119 and use the words only in the way they were intended. ... sigh David -----Original Message----- From: Miller, Robert (GXS) [mailto:Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:39 PM To: ebXML Transport (E-mail) Subject: RE: Use of Optional vs OPTIONAL Gentle People, Perhaps RFC 2119 is written from the viewpoint of implementors. But please remember, implementors come in many flavors. And a specification (such as an ebXML specificaton) may address more than one flavor of implementor. Doug's "OPTIONAL"/"optional" suggestion really muddies the waters. The problem he tries to address isn't one of semantic meaning of the word "optional", it is to whom the semantic meaning applies! Using uppercase "OPTIONAL" to apply to one group of developers (pehaps the middleware folks) and lower case "optional" to apply to another group of developers (perhaps the end-application folks) is definitely not a good idea. Instead, the specification must make clear to which audience of developers (or more precisely to which technical viewpoint) the constraint applies. Cheers, Bob Relevant excerpts from prior Emails extracted below: Doug writes: Another way to describe David's proposal: OPTIONAL - optional to implement for a compliant MSH optional - (optional in the XML sense of the word) not required to appear in an instance of the ebXML Header document or surrounding MIME headers Marty chimes in: 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.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC