W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: XLink 1.1: RFC 2119 conformance

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:50:06 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <hagat1d0bsc8jr2ior499i3gn4rlmom2ec@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Norman Walsh wrote:
>|>|   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".
>
>Does a proposal to replace:
>
>  2. for any optional conditions ("should" and "may") it chooses to
>     observe, it observes them in the way prescribed, and
>
>with
>
>  2. for any recommended or optional conditions ("should" and "may")
>     it chooses to observe, it observes them in the way prescribed,
>     and
>
>satisfy your concern?

This is better; I'm not entirely happy, but this is probably clear
enough. Thanks.
-- 
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 Monday, 23 January 2006 20:49:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:46 GMT