We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comment about user data split from @justinlittman #272:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree that we do not provide sufficient motivation for the requirement of the user field (does it really justify MUST?) and its format
user
Sorry, something went wrong.
@zimeon would it make sense to split out the list into two sections, must and may? I can see the message being in a similar boat as user.
For keys in the OCFL Version block, I can see the following as MUST:
MUST
..and the following as SHOULD:
SHOULD
Describe significance of user field in Inventory
03024a4
- Move `user` and `message` from MUST to SHOULD Resolves: OCFL#274
Describe significance of user field in Inventory (#297)
b6dad26
- Move `user` and `message` from MUST to SHOULD Resolves: #274
awoods
No branches or pull requests
Comment about user data split from @justinlittman #272:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: