W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > June 2003

Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST?

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:42:32 -0600 (MDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0306251236460.5542@measurement-factory.com>

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> At 11:11 AM 6/25/03 -0600, you wrote:
> >[...]
> >Someday, I would like to write an RFC 2119 update clarifying the above
> >and including an accurate conformance statement for RFC 2119 users to
> >cut-and-paste.
> We agree!
> In fact, our resolution of the 2nd part of LC-67 suggests that W3C needs an
> update or supplement of RFC2119, at least giving more generally useful
> guidance on the use of RFC2119 keywords in W3C standards.
> See draft Resolution of LC-67 2nd part [1].
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x67

Yes, I noticed that resolution when it was posted. How can I help to
work on an update to RFC 2119 that will make both IETF and W3C happy,
with the intent to eventually obsolete RFC 2119? Or does W3C prefer
not to update RFC 2119 but to issue a parallel Note instead? In other
words, what is the next step?


Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 14:42:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC