[2.0] spec review: must --> shall
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
@jkowalleck is already working on this.
Since Aug 24, 2026.
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.
Description
THe CycloneDX 2.0 schema will be transferred into Ecma-242, 3rd edition.
Per Ecma guidelines, the word "must" should not be used, instead the word "shall" should be used. - as mentioned by @gesa .
(except when it comes to legal stuff - as mentioned by @mjherzog)
- we need to review the textual part of the schema 2.0 to not use "must", but use "shall".
- are there other such phrasing rules?
I think we have a linter tool that could find all "must".
- Dominant language
- XSLT
- Stars
- 551
- Forks
- 93
- Avg merge
- 5h 38m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 35
Getting set up
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from CycloneDX/specification
-
Response vs ResponceOpen
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 68/100
CycloneDX/specification#1121 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
defect documentation
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
CycloneDX/specification#1115 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
cap: cryptography-registry
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 62/100
CycloneDX/specification#1098 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
defect
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 91/100
CycloneDX/specification#1045 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
CDX 2.0 documentation ready for review
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
CycloneDX/specification#1035 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day