Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:59:13 -0800, "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> said:

Randy> When such cases arise, the document should go back to the WG.
Randy> However, to make up an example, if the English says "it MAY
Randy> contain an optional element Z", but the XSD says Z is
Randy> mandatory, then I think the burden of proof is clearly on those
Randy> who would claim that the XSD is not in error.  I trust humans
Randy> to spot errors in human- readable text more than I trust them
Randy> to spot semantic errors in formal notations.

It's actually the reverse that caused me to post the original
message.  I've seen stupid programmers do validation against an XSD
and assume that because the results came back positive that they don't
have to do error checking.  That got me to thinking that I doubt you
want to readers to assume that the XSD included with the RFC is
perfectly sufficient for validation and is 100% error free.  It's when
the RFC text says MUST but the XSD says MAY that worries me because
programmers will assume the XSD is sufficient and then they fail to
check in code against the NULL for that tag because they assumed the
XSD would have caught the error and then BOOM.

-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>