editorial: field not explicitly required can be considered optional

[ioggstream]

I suggest

• to use a clear BCP14 terminology

instead

can be considered OPTIONAL

is not clear.

note

• I'd explicitly add OPTIONAL on optional fields. "Explicit is better than implicit"

otherwise I'd state

• if a field is not explicitly REQUIRED, it is OPTIONAL

[MikeRalphson]

@jasonbstanding does this cover the issue you raised a couple of weeks ago?

[lornajane]

@ioggstream was this related to another issue or discussion? (sorry, I realise it's been a while!)

[ioggstream]

iirc it was open to suggest a more clean language in the spec

I don't remember if expressions like the above are still present in the latest specs.

The general advise still remains.

[handrews]

@OAI/tsc review request: We should either decide to do this and do it, or close this issue. It's a straightforward yes or no question.

[lornajane]

I think we could add a note about anything that isn't required being considered optional, if it would make it clearer to anyone.

[handrews]

@lornajane we already have that note at the top of the whole "Schema" (meaning structure of OAS, not JSON Schema) section (3.0.3 §4.7; 3.1.0 §4.8):

In the following description, if a field is not explicitly REQUIRED or described with a MUST or SHALL, it can be considered OPTIONAL.

[lornajane]

We discussed this in a TDC meeting and since we have required fields clearly marked and an overall remark about non-required fields being optional by default, we agreed not to add optional to all other fields.

I suggested that it does not improve readability and was not contradicted. I do want to say thanks for the suggestion though - it was a good discussion and ideas are always welcome!