W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2003

May Xpath: MUST

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:05:53 +0100
Message-Id: <200305071205.NAA30059@penguin.nag.co.uk>
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org


the XSLT draft (at least) always uses must as MUST and states at the top that

  In this specification the words must, must not, should, should not, may,
  required, and recommended are to be interpreted as described in
  [RFC2119].

Xpath draft (at least) seems to use must in a less defined manner.
It would probably be clearer if RFC 2119 usage was followed where
appropriate and some word other than must used otherwise.

The usage that caught my eye initially was the following use of must
which is incorrect irrespective of the RFC.

section 3.5:

  When an XPath expression is written within an XML document, the XML
  escaping rules for special characters must be followed; thus "<" must be
  written as "&lt;".

The first must could be a MUST, < must be escaped, but the second
must is false, I could use &#60; for example.

David

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 08:06:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:24 GMT