[CAP] Technically: "optional" isn't the issue

[Art Botterell]

On Jun 2, 2006, at 6/2/06 2:38 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:
> I don't think it serves our purposes to dig our heels in on what  
> is, after all, an optional feature at this point.

'Fraid you've missed the point, Rex.  The issue here isn't whether  
<instruction> is optional, but whether an implementer is allowed to  
remap the semantics of the <instruction> field into another  
element... in this case, <description>.

The CAP spec says explicitly that the Data Dictionary (indeed, the  
whole Alert Message Structure section) is normative.  Certain  
elements may be optional in cardinality, but that doesn't mean their  
semantics can be redefined at the implementer's whim.

- Art