Re: "Author-optional"

Sounds good to me.

-Erik

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
wrote:

> We say in section 1.3 "Documentation Conventions"
> https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#Doc
> umentation_Conventions
>
>     "With regard to implementing behaviors defined for XForms, this
> document uses the terms must, must not,   required, shall, shall not,
> recommended, should, should not, may, and optional in accord with [RFC
> 2119]."
>
> and as a result introduce the ugly term "author-optional", which is used
> all over the place.
>
> Well, I just checked all uses of "optional", and I don't really find an
> occurrence of the word that relies on RFC 2119.
>
> I really don't like "author-optional", and would very much prefer to go
> back to "optional", and never use the RFC 2119 meaning of the word.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Steven
>
>