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

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

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:07:53 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE92F2062.034685DA-ON85256D51.0051B618@lotus.com>

I haven't reached a conclusion about the BEST alternative, but I am
against Alternative 2. That means that every spec would have to address
the RFC 2119 terminology at a minimum.

People interested in this issue should take a (brief?) look at XQuery
1.0 and XPath 2.0 Formal Semantics [1] to see what they do. Keep in
mind that this document applies indirectly to various classes of
product.

Regarding RFC 2119 words in capitals as "an easy way to get the
reader's attention", Lofton wrote:
>But not the only way.  For example, imperative voice statement inside
>a box with a green background, preceded with "ConfReq:" (and tagged
>with markup). That would get reader's attention pretty well. (And
>would be programmatically verifiable.)

More specifically, we want to encourage editors to use markup to make
normative text locatable. I'm thinking we need tags for entire testable
sentences, PLUS a tag for the RFC 2119 keyword. The latter could be
a signal for all caps in a visual rendering, but also trigger an
emphatic voice for an audible rendering. (Mark: are you ready to go
into the recording studio to voice some emphatic sound bites?)
.................David Marston

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 11:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT