W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2005

Re: QASG last call comments: Case of RFC2119 terms

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:57:03 +0000 (UTC)
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502021456280.24755@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> Le 19 janv. 2005, à 09:54, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> > "3.2 Requirement A: Use a consistent style for conformance
> > requirements and explain how to distinguish them." mentions that
> > RFC2119 terms are uppercase, but it should be noted that nothing in
> > RFC2119 (other than consistent usage as such) requires them to be used
> > in uppercase, despite specifications frequently explicitly mentioning
> > that they use lowercase variants instead.
> 
> I had difficulties to find what you were talking about. You are talking about
> the techniques verbiage for this point:
> 
> [[[
> Using RFC 2119 [RFC2119] Keywords (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, ...) makes it easy to
> spot conformance requirements, due to their specific uppercase formatting;
> according to the RFC itself, they should be used only to establish
> interoperation [WIKI-RFC-KEYWORDS];
> ]]]
> 
> The sentence says "due to their specific uppercase formatting" which indeed
> can be misleading because it's not required by the RFC 2119 spec itself
> 	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

That's right. Apologies about the ambiguity in my comment.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 14:57:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:36 UTC