A couple of notes on this one:
1) Having had more time to reflect, I think there might be legitimate
instances of an <alert> of type Alert with no included <info>...
especially if the scope is Restricted or Private. Anyway, making the
presence of an <info> block mandatory when the value of <msgType> is
"Alert" would complicate both the schema and any strict
implementation thereof. So I'm thinking it might be more appropriate
to make this a SHOULD (or even a "normally SHOULD").
2) It seems this could be expressed more simply in the affirmative by
saying something like: "Under most circumstances CAP messages with a
<msgType> value of "Alert" SHOULD include at least one <info>
element."
- Art
At 10:18 AM -0500 12/1/03, wrote:
>I would suggest we add the following last line to Section 1.3. The complete
>paragraph would read...
>
>1.3 Structure of the CAP Alert Message
>Each CAP Alert Message consists of an <alert> segment, which may contain one
>or more <info> segments, each of which may include one or more <area>
>segments (see the document object model diagram in section 3.1, below). While
>the CAP XML Schema Definition (XSD) allows for a valid message to only
>include <alert>, <identifier>, <sender>, <sent>, <status>, and <msgType>,
>this type of message MUST only be used for message acknowledgements,
>cancellations, or other system functions.
>
