tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "C. Halstead" <ch...@sourcelabs.com>
Subject Re: Accepted meaning of 'should' in spec documents
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:34:11 GMT
Awesome.  That's exactly what I was looking for.  Thanks Tim.

---
C. Halstead <chris@sourcelabs.com>
SourceLabs - http://www.sourcelabs.com
Dependable Open Source Systems

----- "Tim Funk" <funkman@joedog.org> wrote:
> Typically its:
> 
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
> 
> -Tim
> 
> C. Halstead wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Just a quick clarification question, and sorry if it's a basic one. 
> When interpreting various spec documents is the qualifier 'should'
> always taken to indicate that something is optional?
> > 
> > Two cases in point:
> > 
> > Bug 41718 was marked as an enhancement request with the explanation
> of "should == optional"
> > 
> > Bug 41722 pertains to a web.xml element that is referred to in the
> spec once with (emphasis mine) "A security-role-ref element *should*
> contain a role-link sub-element..." and then later with "...an
> optional link to a security role(role-link)."
> > 
> > I'm just trying to understand the standards applied when
> interpreting the spec.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org


Mime
View raw message