Skip to content

editorial: field not explicitly required can be considered optional #2470

@ioggstream

Description

@ioggstream

I suggest

  • to use a clear BCP14 terminology

instead

can be considered OPTIONAL

is not clear.

note

  • I'd explicitly add OPTIONAL on optional fields. "Explicit is better than implicit"

otherwise I'd state

  • if a field is not explicitly REQUIRED, it is OPTIONAL

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    clarificationrequests to clarify, but not change, part of the specreview

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions