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

Re: ACTION-295: Should v. Must

From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:16:20 -0400
Message-ID: <5082A424.7000405@networkadvertising.org>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>

On 10/20/12 2:04 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, 2012-10-19 14:18 -0700:
>
>> 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.
> To be clear, it's not in the Process document as a general statement about
> requirements or conventions for other W3C documents. It's simply a statement
> in the "Status of this Document" of the Process document itself, And the
> scope of it is restricted to just the Process document itself. It's clearly
> not intended to express or imply any convention for other W3C documents.
Yes, I could have been more clear about that. But, having read it in the 
process doc, I assumed it to be the convention for all W3 docs, 
expecting that the organization would expect consistency on something 
like that.
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 13:16:54 UTC

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