Re: [emergency] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

On 2 Jun 2006, at 01:11, Art Botterell wrote:

> But where HazCollect left the fold altogether was in their  
> unilateral choice not to support the CAP <instruction> element.   
> Which means that a well-formed CAP message, with the hazard  
> description in <description> and the safety instructions in  
> <instruction>, would lose a critical part of its meaning in  
> transiting the HazCollect network.  Remove the sender's  
> instructions from a message and people could get killed.

Art - not that I am defending NOAA - but the <instruction> element is  
optional in CAP 1.1
so they still are creating valid XML CAP messages? (from a pure  
technical point-of-view).

If, however, you are saying that the <instruction> element plays a  
significant role in CAP,
then perhaps it should have been mandatory? (and with a fixed vocab)

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.