[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dss-x] DSSX-25: Wording regarding optional elements
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: dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org <dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org> Im Auftrag von Andreas Kuehne > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2019 22:37 > An: dss-x <dss-x@lists.oasis-open.org> > 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: kuehne@trustable.de 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]