[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Comment #30: Suggested Language
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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]