On 15 Dec 2021, at 14:41, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > So, summary: I'd replace the opening text to 8.2.4 with: > > "If the owner wishes to change the configuration, they submit a completed > configuration form. The server MUST treat any fields not included as though > they are supplied with the default values from the configuration form (see > 8.2.2)." > > Honestly I think the MUST there is a bit overkill, but I think the rest is OK.
I think what we’re trying to say is (not a prose suggestion): “Accept a form with missing fields, and process missing fields as if the client isn’t trying to modify them”, is that right? I think a small amount of vagueness here is of value, because one might imagine a form where setting one field means another must have a value - a helpful server might autogenerate the second value when the first is enabled, but a MUST synthesise the fields as if they were specified prevents that. /K _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
