Hi Detlef,
I guess JC concern was to replace the soft 'optional' with a RFC
2119-styled MAY .
We once dropped the 'if present' sub clause because of presumed redundancy.
Greetings,
Andreas
> Hi,
>
>
>
> a more correct (while readable) approach might be
>
>
>
> âThe optional X509Digest element MUST contain one instance of a sub-component, if it is present.â
>
> BR,
>
> dh
>
>
>
> Von: <> Im Auftrag von Andreas Kuehne
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2019 22:37
> An: dss-x <>
> Betreff: [dss-x] DSSX-25: Wording regarding optional elements
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> Juan Carlos complained about the way the optionality' of an element is expressed. Currently there is a sentence for elements with maxOccurs=0 or attribues with optional=true:
>
> The optional X509Digest element MUST contain one instance of a sub-component.
>
> Juan Carlos suggests to make it more obvious using a 'MAY':
>
> The X509Digest element MAY be present. This element MUST contain one instance of a sub-component.
>
> Such a sentence was my first approach and I once changed it because of bad readability.
>
> What's your opinion? Explicit or readable texts?
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> Andrreas
>
--
Andreas KÃhne
phone: +49 177 293 24 97
mailto:
Trustable Ltd. Niederlassung Deutschland Gartenheimstr. 39C - 30659 Hannover Amtsgericht Hannover HRB 212612
Director Andreas KÃhne
Company UK Company No: 5218868 Registered in England and Wales
