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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:50 GMT