I'm still not sure why it is not either definition and why this is not allowed?
Section 1.1.1 says
"An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared
to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option,
though perhaps with reduced functionality."
Our spec simply defines *reduced functionality* as an Error of NotSupported.
I'm not sure why this change is needed?
We need to limit out discussions to essential changes.
Regards,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:09 PM
To: ebXML
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL
David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused (according
to 2119) in a number of contexts. The basic issue here is a conflict between
something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message and
something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system. In the
specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document
conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the
second is intended. I would strongly recommend making the change Chris
suggested.
thanx,
doug
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
