RE: New Revision 1g of CT Guidelines

> Just a small typo comment that I write here not to forget about it for
> our editors meeting: the document uses two different syntaxes to

That's certainly not intentional, just an artefact of its continuing evolution from plain text to hated xml-spec.

Jo



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 March 2008 13:16
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New Revision 1g of CT Guidelines
> 
> Thanks Jo,
> 
> The placeholders with references to the various actions are incredibly
> useful!
> 
> Just a small typo comment that I write here not to forget about it for
> our editors meeting: the document uses two different syntaxes to
> reference MAY, SHOULD, MUST. With capitalized letters and with bold
> letters. Unless there's a real reason behind that, I guess we should
> just choose one and stick to it...
> 
> We should also probably add a reference to the RFC 2119 that defines the
> terms:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> 
> François.
> 
> 
> Jo Rabin wrote:
> > Hello CT Fans
> >
> > I've uploaded a new version of the CT Guidelines. You'll notice that
> > there are a considerable number of editorial notes and placeholders for
> > contributions (yes, that means you!)
> >
> > Francois and I can't really progress to our editors meeting without
> > those contributions so please can you try to be timely in making them.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guide
> > lines/080313
> >
> > I'm afraid that I won't be able to attend the CT Call next Tuesday.
> >
> > Jo
> >
> >
> >