[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must

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