Mike,
I agree with your conclusion.
In RFC2119 'must' and 'shall' are also synonyms,
and I would like to see the DFDL spec use 'must' throughout and drop the
use of 'shall' (it looks like there is only one use - in section 9.3.2.2).
Fwiw I've always been suspicious of that
statement in section 2, as I don't believe there has ever been a review
of the uses of 'must', 'should', 'may' to ensure compliance with RFC2119.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM
DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM Systems, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
<dfdl-wg@ogf.org>
Date:
25/10/2015 21:55
Subject:
[DFDL-WG] minor
spec issue - Section 2: required, optional, and RFC2119 notational conventions
Sent by:
"dfdl-wg"
<dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org>
In Section 2 on notational conventions we say "The
key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not,
recommended, may,
may not and optional in this document are to be interpreted as described
in [RFC2119]."
Which is fine except for the words "required"
and "optional" which we use in several different senses. Section
21 on optional features of the DFDL standard uses "optional"
vs. "required" in this sense of RFC2119.
But we also use "Optional Occurrence",
"Optional Element" very specifically and define them in our glossary.
(Along with Required Occurrence and Required Element.)
So the above sentence on notational conventions we should
just drop the words "optional" and "required".
I looked for synonyms for required/optional. mandatory/nonmandatory
and compulsory/noncompulsory are ones that we might consider using in the
future. We do use mandatory now as in mandatory alignment of character
set code units.
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology
| www.tresys.com
Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email
discussions are subject to the OGF
Intellectual Property Policy
--
dfdl-wg mailing list
dfdl-wg@ogf.org
https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg