CAP Errata

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Concerning issues #13 through #18 on the CAP list, it appears only one of 
these issues should be considered errata at this point:

#13 Concerns the fact that some parsers have trouble with the normative XML 
Schema in the CAP specification.  We agreed in the 7/13/04 that this could 
be an errata issue.  Dialog has been ongoing on the list.  A decision 
should be made whether to do so in the conference call today and suggested 
wording needs to be proposed.

#14  This will be dispensed as invalid ("negative" geo coordinates allowed)

#15  Concerns password protection and encryption (or lack thereof) of 
passwords.  Some discussion is ongoing.  We can discuss in the conference 
call today what should be the disposition.

#16  Concerns the current values for the <certainty> element.  Dialog has 
been ongoing on the list.  This was decided to be addressed in future editions

#17  Concerns the desire to have data elements with greater specificity for 
<event> and <category>.  In our last call where we discussed this, 
discussion was going to remain open.  Coordination with NIMS was also 
considered.  We can discuss how this should be dispensed on the call today.

#18  Proposes to add <responseType> element in <info>  We agreed to 
continue discussion on this after the 7/13 meeting.

A comment was forwarded to the list originating from J. D. Main at 
CompassCom.  His question/issue has to do with a process of registering an 
implementation of his application with agencies who would broadcast a CAP 
message.  How should this comment be handled?

I have yet to update the spreadsheet and will need some guidance in doing so.
Elysa