RE: comment on XML ID appendix E

While I take your point, I note that all of Appendix E
is non-normative, and I don't believe we can (or should)
try to indicate that a note in a non-normative appendix
is normative.

I don't think having this one "should" be 2119-ized is
particularly confusing, but if we do issue a new edition
of XML ID, we could consider de-2119-ifying it.

paul
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-id-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-id-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: Monday, 2007 December 10 9:33
> To: public-xml-id@w3.org
> Subject: comment on XML ID appendix E
> 
> I have a comment on
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/#id-avn
> 
> Specifically the text:
> 
> [[
> 
> Note:
> 
> For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc." 
> href="#dt-must">should</a>
> ]]
> 
> I suggest
> 
> [[
> Note (normative):
> 
> For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc." 
> href="#dt-must">should</a>
> ]]
> 
> or
> 
> [[
> 
> Note:
> 
> For interoperability, document producers are advised to
> ]]
> 
> 
> would be better.
> 
> (i.e. in my view, it is good policy to only use the RFC 2119 keywords 
> with their full force in normative text. In informative text, 
> it is best 
> to avoid the keywords, lest their be confusion as to the 
> intended force of the statement).
> 
> I have a mild preference for the former change - I think this 
> 'should' does deserve RFC 2119 force.
> 
> Jeremy