W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: "Should" sanity check

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:47:22 -0400
Cc: "'Rinke Hoekstra'" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <27895244-2075-4FC3-833C-4FCCBC4968D2@gmail.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

BTW, there is specific guidance about this matter in http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#RFC
Pat Hayes asks about the discordance between the cited CSS style[1]  
and the instructions, but I think the bottom line is that having them  
be upper case when used in the normative sense will be the least  
confusing.

-Alan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jun/0023.html

On May 29, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

> I took the liberty to update the document along these lines: once we  
> see the text, we might actually have a better idea of how good
> the resolution works. Also, I have added a new section 1.1 which  
> describe the meaning of "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT". Here is the
> diff:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=8197&oldid=8168
>
> Section 1.1, I hope, also addresses Peter's comment that we need to  
> specify which part of the document is normative and which is
> not. (The solution is, roughly speaking, to make the whole document  
> normative, apart from the intuitive description of the
> semantics.)
>
> Please let me know should you have some comments/problems regarding  
> my formulation in Section 1.1 and/or the usage of "SHOULD" and
> "should".
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:48:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:48:11 GMT