W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: 4395bis ticket 70: RFC 2119 language in Section 3.1 of 4395bis

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:00:16 +0300
Message-ID: <4E571A50.2030406@gmail.com>
To: public-iri@w3.org
25.08.2011 23:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='individual'/>
>
> On 8/22/11 5:00 PM, Chris Weber wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/70>
>>
>> Does this working group and the document editors agree that a "SHOULD"
>> is the most appropriate here?  If so this issue can be closed.
> The current text is:
>
>     New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD
>     have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that
>     available with already registered URI/IRI schemes.
>
> I think "SHOULD" is fine. I think "MUST" would be problematic because it
> would lead to fruitless arguments about whether the utility of the
> scheme is truly clear and whether the community that would benefit from
> registration of the scheme is truly broad.

I suppose you can remove "SHOULD" and put "should" here.  That 
requirement is scoped to subjective evaluation of a reviewer and may not 
employ 2119 language.

Mykyta

>
> Peter
>
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 04:00:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:02 GMT