On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:26:57 +0200, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: >> On 27 May 2009, at 16:15, Andrei Popescu wrote: >>> For clarity, I would propose avoiding RFC2119 keywords in this >>> section. We could instead say: >> >> I'm not particularly happy with that step, in particular since the >> section is already clearly labelled as non-normative, and since the >> phrase in question puts a burden on implementors -- instead of listing a >> requirement that implementations should conform to. > > Please, no RFC 2119 terminology in non-normative prose. That is very confusing. > Agreed. Andrei > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 15:34:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 August 2009 20:54:11 GMT