FAST 1.2 clarification

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

In the FAST 1.2 spec, it states:
So:

translates to:

I’d like to know what translates to. Is it


  1. or

  2. or
  3. either one is acceptable.

Thanks,
Craig

3

It should be case 1. The auxiliary identifier is a property of the field rather than a property of the type of the field.

/David

In the FAST 1.2 spec, it states: So:
translates to:

I’d like to know what
translates to. Is it

  1. or
  2. or
  3. either one is acceptable.

Thanks, Craig

4

If you’re using SHOULD (as opposed to saying MUST), then the answer is 3, right?

  • Craig

It should be case 1. The auxiliary identifier is a property of the field
rather than a property of the type of the field.

/David

In the FAST 1.2 spec, it states: So:
translates to:

I’d like to know what
translates to. Is it


  1. or

  2. or
  3. either one is acceptable.

Thanks, Craig

5

SHOULD as in the 1.2 specification is not written yet and this particular tidbit is not covered by the 1.2 extension proposal. But your case 1 is what the proposal should have said, had it been more specific on this matter.

/David

If you’re using SHOULD (as opposed to saying MUST), then the answer
is 3, right?

  • Craig

It should be case 1. The auxiliary identifier is a property of the
field rather than a property of the type of the field.

/David

In the FAST 1.2 spec, it states: So:
translates to:

I’d like to know what
translates to. Is it


  1. or

  2. or
  3. either one is acceptable.

Thanks, Craig