W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2015

[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:56:49 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28011-523-eWqNc6Bmv4@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #5 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
We can certainly regard the sentence "The primary format token is always
present and must not be zero-length." as a paraphrase for "The implementation
must raise a dynamic error if the primary format token is absent or is

The question is whether we need to say explicitly that we are adopting this
convention, and whether this would itself be a variation on the RFC definition
of "must".

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2015 17:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 February 2015 17:56:52 UTC