- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 17 Jun 2003 14:24:37 +0200
- To: ijacobs@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 08:26:36 UTC
Hello Ian, As we were discussing some of the issues you raised during our Last Call period of the Specifications Guidelines, we were wondering if you could explain us in which circumstances and for what reason you think it can be better not to use RFC 2119 keywords to indicate conformance requirements in a specification. For instance, in UAAG10, you apparently chose to use imperative verbs as an equivalent to MUST; as we're trying to clarify our checkpoints on conformance requirements, getting a better understanding on this would be really helpful for us. Thanks, Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 08:26:36 UTC