- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:17:00 +0100
- To: "yaso@nic.br" <yaso@nic.br>, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
The issue is open in tracker so I'm taking it as open - but if we're taking them out (and I think we are too) then some of the intro matter and the template need updating. Phil On 18/05/2015 16:03, yaso@nic.br wrote: > I thought we had an agreement on this: > > "An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all" > > I ran trough the logs and couldn't find nothing against not using the > RFC2119 keywords at the document. Furthermore, we talked at the F2F > about the translation to Portuguese problem with the keywords. There was > another decision on that? > > > yaso > > > > > > > On 05/18/2015 11:53 AM, Phil Archer wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> The BP editors have been working hard and have made a number of what I >> think are big steps forward with the doc. >> >> But Issue-146 remains unresolved: what is normative in a BP? >> >> Take our old favourite first BP >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#ProvideMetadata that says: >> >> Metadata MUST be provided for both human users and computer applications >> >> I doubt anyone here will disagree with this statement, but is it right >> to make this the normative part of the BP? And, if so, are we right to >> use the RFC2119 MUST? >> >> Take a less clear cut example: >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#MultipleFormats that says: >> >> Data SHOULD be available in multiple data formats. >> >> Really? >> >> SHOULD is "comply or explain" - i.e. you'd better have a very good >> reason not to provide data in multiple formats so I might argue one day >> that this should be a MAY. What does MAY mean? From the infamous RFC2119: >> >> "This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is >> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a >> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that >> it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item." >> >> (I've omitted the rest of the definition but this is the essence of it). >> >> Suppose the WG agrees and this BP now becomes: >> >> "Data MAY be available in multiple data formats." >> >> Which doesn't really convey in a single sentence what we mean. We might >> end up with >> >> "Publishers are encouraged to make data available in multiple formats >> (OPTIONAL)" >> >> i.e. re-word the normative line to fit in with the definition of the >> relevant RFC2119 keyword. >> >> An alternative would be not to include any RFC2119 keywords at all. I'm >> easy either way - I can see arguments for and against including these >> keywords - but it remains an open issue that I think we owe it to the >> editors to decide what to do. >> >> Phil. >> >> >> >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 15:17:46 UTC