W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Avoid deprecated features query

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:55:45 -0400
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030605185511.019e8d60@localhost>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynnbartlett@yahoo.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org



But, should it be clarified to mean MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT?  I have
always interpreted it as SHOULD NOT.  It sounds from Gregg's statements
like the group was trying to find something a little stronger than
should not and a little weaker than must not.

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Matt May
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:08 PM
To: Kynn Bartlett
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Avoid deprecated features query


On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 03:22  PM, Kynn Bartlett (by way of Wendy
A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>) wrote:
 > The word "avoid" is one word that -- in the opinion of this Web
 > development educator -- should be excised from WCAG entirely.  It
 > tells us nothing and guides no one.

I agree that this word is problematic, and should be avoi-- er...

RFC 2119[1] defines terms like MUST, SHOULD, and MAY. This is the
standard for setting requirements or prohibitions in Internet standards.
If "avoid" indicates prohibition, it should be followed up with a
statement using MUST NOT; and/or indicate that "avoid" equals MUST NOT
in the glossary; or it should be replaced with "Do not use". I suggest
"Do not use".

-
m

[1]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 18:56:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT