[ebxml-cppa] Suggestions for CPPA authors

[Tony Weida <rweida@hotmail.com>]

CPPA authors, please take note of the following items.

 

1. Marty suggested that names of elements and attributes from related
specs (e.g., MSG and BPSS) should be in bold italics, just as with CPPA
elements and attributes.  I agree, and have updated the "Document
Conventions" section accordingly.  I've also introduced boldface in
numerous instances, but not yet reviewed the entire document for
connsistency in this regard.  Please follow this convention in future

submissions.

 

2. Marty also noted the following:

 

The specification is badly misusing OPTIONAL and MAY.  Conformance to
RFC 2119 requires that these words be used ONLY to refer to features
that a vendor of an ebXML implementation may or may not support.  Use
other words such as might, could, is, can. according to the context. I
will point out the ones I noticed but the whole document needs to be
scrubbed.

 

Note: This problem with RFC 2119 conformance exists only with MAY and
OPTIONAL.  The biggest problem is with use of these terms to denote
cardinality of XML attributes and elements.  The other RFC 2119 terms
are not permissive and use of, for example, REQUIRED to define an
element or attribute is not a problem since it cannot be confused with a
requirement on a vendor (i.e. It is stating a requirement on both a
vendor and a user of the spec.)

 

Thanks,
Tony