[CAP] CAP 1.2?

[matt hoffman]

Mick Jagger wrote:
> Hi,
> 	Just following up on a point Matt made regarding implementation.  The majority of problems that people have with CAP is understanding how to properly implement it.  A quick look through the list of publically available CAP feeds shows that most of them are publishing alerts that are invalid.
> 	I feel that there is a need for more documentation and development resources rather than a major redesign of the standard.  That should be the focus of any work at this point, instead of redesigning something that many people aren't using properly in the first place.
> 	Things like an FAQ, a developer's guide, a list of example alerts, etc.  I'd be willing to work on the FAQ and if people have questions, send them to the list and they can be compiled into something on the CAP cookbook.
>
>   
Agreed that proper usage is a top need right now.   An addendum to that
thought, though -- perhaps a focus of 1.2 or 2.0 should be to tie proper
implementation requirements directly into the schema.  For example, the
reference tag -- I rarely see it properly used as a reference to a
previously sent alert, and instead see it used to hold arbitrary URLs. 
A schema revision (which could easily be a 1.2 instead of a 2.0 in this
case) could require at least two commas in the reference field, for
example, so that a URL in that field would fail schema validation.  As
much as possible, usage notes in the doc can be echoed by schema-level
constraints, since people don't read the doc, but more and more SOAP
toolkits include schema validation options.