Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
[deleted comment]
Note that if accepted this would involve some work that essentially involves
identifying those elements which should not be made optional
Original comment by clivemjo...@gmail.com
on 2 Apr 2010 at 10:49
We think this warrants more discussion. Making certain data elements optional
may be
OK, but we think there should be more rigor around what is required - at least
structurally. Certain things must be required if this standard is to be used
for
recurring imports from the same source, i.e. thins like "Key" elements for each
entity.
Original comment by gglbwmn2...@gmail.com
on 7 May 2010 at 2:35
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 19 Dec 2011 at 8:19
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 19 Dec 2011 at 8:20
voting was in favor of making this change in 3.1. I will make sure that all
keys are still required.
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:30
But we're only changing elements. Attributes will not be changed from existing
use="required/optional"
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 17 Feb 2012 at 3:39
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 17 Feb 2012 at 6:37
Issue 41 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by e...@ejahn.net
on 18 Feb 2012 at 3:41
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
eric.c.j...@gmail.com
on 2 Feb 2010 at 6:06