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/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28011

--- 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
zero-length."

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