document #304
Ensure spec complies with its sentence about RFC2119
| Status: | closed | Start date: | 01/06/2016 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | - | % Done: | 100% |
|
| Category: | - | |||
| Target version: | DFDL v1.0 | |||
| Document Type: | Proposed Recommendation |
Description
The DFDL spec contains the following:
"The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not, recommended, may, may not and optional in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]."
The spec use of 'required' and 'optional' is not always compliant, as both are used in specific glossary definitions. So it makes sense to drop them from the sentence. Also check that the spec complies with the other stated terms.
History
Updated by Steve Hanson almost 7 years ago
- Status changed from accepted to submitted
Updated by Michael Beckerle over 5 years ago
- Status changed from submitted to accepted
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
Partly done:
Erratum 5.26 specifies the change in wording to remove required/optional from the RFC 2119 words.
It remains to pass through the spec to find where must, must not, shall, shall not, should, should not, may, may not are used to correctly conform to RFC 2119 usage. At least one place is incorrect:
Section 2.6: "...then a Dynamic Type Error should cause a Schema Definition Error" change the term "should" to "must".
Updated by Steve Hanson almost 5 years ago
- Target version set to DFDL v1.0
Updated by Michael Beckerle about 2 years ago
- Status changed from accepted to closed
- % Done changed from 50 to 100
(Other formats not available in this archive.