W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: ACTION-295: Should v. Must

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:18:43 -0700
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5F6E8D6E-438F-4A7E-9FF1-0BC48784F784@gbiv.com>
To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
On Oct 19, 2012, at 1:40 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
> On 10/18/12 6:47 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Editors, please note that the all-caps is only for highlighting
>> the words so that requirements are easily found -- all usage
>> of those words, whether in caps or not, is subject to RFC2119.
> Roy -- I'm confused on this point. The W3C process doc says the following:
> 
> " The terms MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, REQUIRED, and MAY when highlighted (through style sheets, and in uppercase in the source) are used in accordance with RFC 2119 [RFC2119]."
> 
> It specifies "when highlighted," so I expected that to be the convention for all W3C docs.

Thanks David, I was not aware of that statement in the W3C process.

In RFC2119 itself, it says

 "In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
  the requirements in the specification.  These words are often
  capitalized.  This document defines these words as they should be
  interpreted in IETF documents."

and it is a frequent bone of contention within the IETF.  The authors
have been quite clear that capitalization is not necessary -- it is
just good form to highlight them.  Current practice in the IETF is to
use different words (might, ought, is, will) when not specifying
protocol requirements.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 21:19:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC