> Section 5.1.3: "This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental > or Differential." This makes it sound like a deposit of those two types not > using this element might be non-compliant. I suggest instead "This element is > only used in Incremental and Differential deposits." (Or instead of "used", > maybe "meaningful".) > > Section 5.1.4: " It SHOULD be present in all type of deposits." Same issue. > Maybe "It is valid for use in all types of deposits."
I don't understand this: "SHOULD" means that "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." The text in this document isn't saying that these make sense in the places they specify: the document *does* mean "SHOULD" here. Certainly, "there are no relevant items to include" is a valid reason. What's the point of your objection? Barry _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
