Re: [emergency] Comment #30: Suggested Language

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

A couple of notes on this one:

1) Having had more time to reflect, I think there might be legitimate 
instances of an <alert> of type Alert with no included <info>... 
especially if the scope is Restricted or Private.  Anyway, making the 
presence of an <info> block mandatory when the value of <msgType> is 
"Alert" would complicate both the schema and any strict 
implementation thereof.  So I'm thinking it might be more appropriate 
to make this a SHOULD (or even a "normally SHOULD").

2) It seems this could be expressed more simply in the affirmative by 
saying something like: "Under most circumstances CAP messages with a 
<msgType> value of "Alert" SHOULD include at least one <info> 
element."

- Art




At 10:18 AM -0500 12/1/03, emtc@nc.rr.com wrote:
>I would suggest we add the following last line to Section 1.3. The complete
>paragraph would read...
>
>1.3 Structure of the CAP Alert Message
>Each CAP Alert Message consists of an <alert> segment, which may contain one
>or more <info> segments, each of which may include one or more <area>
>segments (see the document object model diagram in section 3.1, below). While
>the CAP XML Schema Definition (XSD) allows for a valid message to only
>include <alert>, <identifier>, <sender>, <sent>, <status>, and <msgType>,
>this type of message MUST only be used for message acknowledgements,
>cancellations, or other system functions.
>