Re: [ws-rx] Issue 129: Define "discard"

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM wrote on 06/15/2006 09:21:56
PM:
> +1 modulo removing the word "optional" (RFC 2119 again)
to align with 
> other elements the RMD may leave out.  Just noticed that bit.

Ah, Matt beat you to that one :-)  its been removed
in the latest
WD - so if this get accepted I'll make sure it doesn't
reappear.
 
> I suspect a few continue to have problems with MUST.  This doesn't
> bother me that much at the moment because I'm tired but not (yet)
> cranky, and it's the RMD itself imposing (announcing) the constraints
on 
> its later behaviour.  Bob may certainly be able to convince me
otherwise.

Well, don't think too hard about it  :-)

> Lower level detail: Why does the text explicitly say the RMD has a
> particular behaviour when it leaves the element out?  In other
words, 
> why can't the RMD choose not to announce how it will handle gap-filled
> but closed sequences?

Hmm, that's one for Bob I think since that's part
of the current text.

thanks
-Doug