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