* Norman Walsh wrote: >/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say: >| http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ section 3 and 3.3 are >| contradictory with respect to the keywords "optional" and "should, the >| latter section refers to "should" as indicating "optional" features, >| this is incorrect usage of RFC 2119 terminology, please change the >| document such that it complies with the requirements in RFC 2119. > >What do you think is contradictory, exactly? Section 3.3 has 'for any optional conditions ("should" and "may")'. This is a claim that both "should" and "may" mean "optional" where section 3 clearly states that "should" does not mean "optional". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 21:02:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:45 GMT