Closed TylerDixon closed 2 years ago
The 2nd is the intended meaning. I can see how it could be read in the first way if read in isolation from the rest of the specification though.
I like your wording "that the statement it refers to in the id property of its Object does not exist." too. We should update this in the next (patch or otherwise) version.
Under the voided statement requirements there's a requirement as follows:
I could see this interpreted as 2 ways:
http://adlnet.gov/expapi/verbs/voided
verb should not be rejected on the basis that it does not have anObject
property.http://adlnet.gov/expapi/verbs/voided
verb should not be rejected on the basis that the statement it refers to in theid
property of itsObject
does not exist.The 2nd interpretation seems more logical to me (the first just seeming like a malformed statement), but I just wanted some clarification.