Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:47 PM, wamwagner at comcast.net wrote:
>> I am unhappy with "... conformance requirement that applies to a particular capability or feature." as a general statement because:
>> a. Most conformance requirements apply to a particular capability or feature. I assume that one is to infer that the requirement applies only if that capability or feature exists in the subject implementation seeking to be conformant.
>Per RFC 2119, REQUIRED, MUST, and MUST NOT are unconditional by themselves. You make them conditional by making the statement containing them conditional, e.g., 'If the Printer supports two-sided printing, the Printer MUST support the "sides" Job Template attribute.'
>> There is there is the additional question as to whether the term should 'Conditionally Required" or "Conditionally Mandatory". Since the basic compliance term is "Required", "Conditionally Required" seems more appropriate.
> A reasonable variation on the 2003 definition and the RFC2119 definition of requirement levels is :
>> CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED: definition is a requirement of the specification if the specified condition is true.
>I'm not super happy with this...
> One might prefer a term other than "definition", such as capability or feature, and consider a requirement of the implementation rather than of the specification, but RFC 2119 wording is:" … definition is an absolute requirement of the specification."
>> Alternatively, we could modify the current definition to:
>> CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED: A conformance requirement that applies if the specified condition is true.
>I like this better, or the definition you quoted from 5100.6:
"The term CONDITIONALLY REQUIRED means that the Printer MUST support the feature, if the specified condition is true."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...