Awesome. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Tim. --- C. Halstead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SourceLabs - http://www.sourcelabs.com Dependable Open Source Systems
----- "Tim Funk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
