Re: [tag] Comments on the TA markup

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

I agree, though the existing text does materially say
the same thing elsewhere, I think

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




2010/1/19 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:
> Quick comment:
>
> I think we should clearly remind the user that optionality in the mark-up
> does NOT mean optionality for actual TA instances...
> , e.g. add at the end of Section 2.2 a clear warning:
>
> "NOTE: valid instances of XML representations defined here may omit optional
> parts as indicated with "?" and "*" (examples: testAssertion/target?,
> testAssertion/Predicate?), however test assertion instances so represented
> MUST comply with cardinality requirements in the TA model specification,
> which may actually require that optional elements in the XML representation
> be specify in other ways (e.g. see "implicit TA parts") outside this
> particular XML fragment (example: an "implicit" TA target)."
>
> Otherwise the user may be confused and believe that s/he does not need to
> specify such parts at all.
>
> -jacques