W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Comments on AssocSS Editor's Draft 10 November 2009

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:13:37 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u3i44zdeidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:02:06 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> It seems a bit circular to me to have a requirement that requirements be  
> followed; isn't it enough to reference RFC2119?
>
> Maybe we can write it as statements of fact, as in:
>
>     Documents conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST  
> and
>     MUST NOT constraints given for documents in this specification.
>
>     Processors conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST  
> and
>     MUST NOT constraints given for processors in this specification.
>     Processors do not have to check or enforce any of the constraints  
> given
>     for documents in this specification.
>
> Still, it seems to be stating the obvious: to be conforming, you have to  
> conform.

I've now added something along the lines of the above.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 08:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC