W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: [ISSUE] Use of RFC 2119 keywords only for the Conformance Clause

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:49:22 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Fine with me.

At 03:31 PM 10/13/2004, Karl Dubost wrote:
>As Lynne has noticed it, we don't use RFC 2119 keywords in our conformance 
>clause, but in the Conformance clause.
>Le 04 oct. 2004, à 19:45, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit :
>>4. The keywords, MUST, MUST NOT, etc.  We don’t actually use these in our 
>>document.  Do we still need to include this statement?
>>The last sentence, “Occurrences of these words in lowercase… with no 
>>normative implications” is NOT true.  Our Conformance Clause uses ‘must’ 
>>and has a normative implication.
>Would it be acceptable to include those in the Conformance section?
>Proposed Text:
>The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
>"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY ", and "OPTIONAL" are used as 
>defined in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] in this conformance clause. Occurrences of 
>these words in lowercase has normative implications.
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 12:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:33 UTC