Re: [dwbp] Propose to close Issue-146

Hi Newton,

We discussed this in the chairs' call on Tuesday. Our only concern with 
would be that it is established practice for W3C REC docs to use the 
RFC2119 terms. However if the WG decides that we should not use them, 
that is fine too.
I've added this as the first item on tomorrow's agenda, so we can 
finalise it.

Cheers.
Deirdre

On 28/08/2015 18:50, Newton Calegari wrote:
>  Hi all,
>
> we had discussed a lot about the RFC terms on the BP Document.
> I think we have a decision on this and we can close the ISSUE-146 [1].
>
> A lot of inputs were given regarding this issue, and, by decision of 
> the BP Editors, we agree on removing all the RFC statements and let 
> the terms "should" and "must" be written as they are in plain English.
>
> BR,
> Newton
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/146

-- 
--------------------------------------
Deirdre Lee, Director
Derilinx - Linked & Open Data Solutions
  
Web:      www.derilinx.com
Email:    deirdre@derilinx.com
Tel:      +353 (0)1 254 4316
Mob:      +353 (0)87 417 2318
Linkedin: ie.linkedin.com/in/leedeirdre/
Twitter:  @deirdrelee