On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 12:13:59AM +0000, Daniel K. wrote: > 3.1.1.1. Prose version - must contain removed > > Basically the same as before, but with the 'Must contain' introduction > removed. That wording certainly got a bit repetitive. > > > 3.1.1.2. Multiple tables version > 3.1.1.3. Single table version > 3.1.1.4. Single table version 2
I think the prose version is fairly clear and gives the most opportunity for extra description if needed. Of the tables I prefer 3.1.1.4 (with the dots). This is what prompted me to reply, though: > The tables also lose information on where the order of elements is > mandated by the XSD. There's no room for more columns to describe it. If extra effort (like side notes) are needed to accomodate a table, that makes the table less attractive (to me). OTOH maybe the "required" column could be turned into "notes" or some such thing, with there being notes to indicate "required" or "optional" or "ordered." But that's not what prompted a comment either. I simply wonder why there is order needed in some (or all) elements. Why does it matter that "row" and "identifiers" and "auth_results" appear in fixed order? I realize that the corresponding xs:sequence tags occur in RFC7489, and perhaps this wonderment was addressed in old discussions, so maybe never mind. But in my naivete I don't see the reason. (Maybe the reason could be stated.) -mm- _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
