|
Good Morning, Thanks so much for catching this Barry. This was a mistake on my part, this was an in-process edit that should not have been published (it was some early thoughts on how to respond that we eventually decided to not make). You are completely
correct and we did intend to leave the original language as it was, I will publish a new draft with this verbiage returned to its original text. Sorry for the confusion everyone! And thanks again Barry for catching. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- Notice: This email is from an external sender. Thanks for making the updates, Roger. I do have an issue with the change to "non-negative" in Section 3.4: > 4. S3.4. Does this text imply there is no zero fee or credit possible?
> Might be useful to explicitly set guidance for the use of 0/null fee/credit. > > A <fee:fee> element MUST > have a non-negative value. A <fee:credit> element MUST have a > negative value. > > [RDC] This was discussed in another email but for completeness, this does state fee can be zero (a non-negative value). Indeed, it was discussed, and the thing is that the text change is wrong: New text: A <fee:fee> element MUST have a zero or non-negative value. A <fee:credit> element MUST have a zero or negative value. 1. "Non-negative" already includes zero. It does. So "zero or non-negative" is redundant and sounds silly. But it's not wrong, so if you really want that I'm not going to object further. But... 2. By adding "zero or" to the credit part, you have changed the meaning. The original text said that it MUST be negative... so you can't have a zero credit. The new text allows that. Is it really the intent that a zero credit is permissible? Barry |
