- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:02:14 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
* 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 UTC