W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: comments for XML Schema 20010330

From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:50:50 -0700
Message-Id: <p0501040eb70187b0a4e9@[]>
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Henry S. Thompson wrote:

>  > The terminology or conformance sections could explain that:
>  >      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>  >      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
>  >      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
>  >      [RFC2119].
>  > with RFC 2119 as a normative reference. If you don't want to use the
>  > RFC, then you could explain why not.
>  I've used the prose from XML 1.0 (2e) now for 'may' and 'must',

Sorry, do you mean in a version other than 20010330 or in that one?

>  and
>  included some qualifying remarks.  2119 really isn't appropriate in my
>  view.

Just a thought. In [1] you could say:

     Some of the key words of [RFC2119] are defined in Part 2:
     Datatypes. Some are unused. None have special meaning in Part 1:
     Structures nor do any in XML Schema refer to the RFC.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xmlschema-1-20010330/#intro-terminology

But of course you know your specification and users better than I do.

Susan Lesch - mailto:lesch@w3.org  tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) - http://www.w3.org/
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 01:50:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:56 UTC