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

RE: Proposed Quality Tip -- Time in URIs (was URI Usability)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:39:34 +0200
To: "Brian Kelly" <B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>, "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: "Rajasekaran Deepak" <deepakr@students.iiit.net>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCEOHCCAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> I also agree with Olivier's points.

+1

Also about "must" ... in the standards world a different word "MUST" has a
well understood and common meaning as defined by RFC 2119
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
[[
MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
   definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
]]
also section 6:
[[
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
   and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
   actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
   potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
   example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
   on implementors where the method is not required for
   interoperability.
]]

Since "MUST" and "must" are pronounced the same and easily confused, it is
IMO generally best to avoid the word "must" when possible. This is
particularly important where the phrasing sounds like a standard document.

I also feel that section 6 is helpful for many imperatives even outside the
narrow scope of that section. For example, I have avoided using an
imperative in the paragraph above.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 04:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:35 UTC