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]
