- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:38 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 January 2015 at 08:30, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Some people in the IETF believe it's equivalent to "OPTIONAL", while others
> disagree. I recommend to uppercase "optional" where it's supposed to express
> a requirement, and to choose a different where it's not.
Or do this:
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
+ NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to be
interpreted as
described in <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
Or better yet:
- 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
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" in
this document are to be interpreted as
described in <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.
We don't use the full 2119 repertoire, and we shouldn't need to.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 18:11:04 UTC