Stream: conformance
Topic: Must-support on root element
Ioana Singureanu (Sep 09 2017 at 19:28):
... it's supposed to be "optional" but it makes more sense to prohibit it. Under what circumstances might we say that the root element is not a must-support element?
Grahame Grieve (Sep 09 2017 at 19:31):
to say that you must support the resource as a whole?
Ioana Singureanu (Sep 09 2017 at 20:45):
What if "must support" is not true? It seems that is should be out and "must support" by default. It would be simpler. Should I enter a tracker item?
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 09 2017 at 21:41):
Nothing is "mustSupport" in the core spec. So having it be "true" as a default would be problematic. Also, we don't have the machinery to have defaults that are contextual. It's actually legitimate to have child nodes that are "mustSupport=true" when the parent is "mustSupport=false" - what that means is "you don't have to support the parent, but if you do, you must support these children".
Ioana Singureanu (Sep 09 2017 at 21:47):
Nothing is "mustSupport" in the core spec. So having it be "true" as a default would be problematic. Also, we don't have the machinery to have defaults that are contextual. It's actually legitimate to have child nodes that are "mustSupport=true" when the parent is "mustSupport=false" - what that means is "you don't have to support the parent, but if you do, you must support these children".
The resource you are profiling must be supported.
Lloyd McKenzie (Sep 09 2017 at 21:52):
Why? In the context of a CapabilityStatement it's entirely possible that support for some of the resources would be optional
Michel Rutten (Sep 09 2017 at 22:35):
I'm still struggling to understand the use for defining mustSupport = true on a root element? When and why would you do this?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
