W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

[dxwg] Harmonise use of "constraints" wording with IETF RFC 2119 (#1070)

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:36:33 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-493087948-1568334991-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
rob-metalinkage has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/dxwg:

== Harmonise use of "constraints" wording with IETF RFC 2119 ==
There has been much debate about the meaning of conformance and constraints. Given that the specification follows https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt anyway, we should harmonise terminology with this spec:
constraints, restrictions etc   => "requirements"

RFC 2119 also sheds useful light on different types of requirement and conformance implications. Profiles does not specify how conformance is ascertained or described - but the available role descriptions should reference these where appropriate. (needs a separate issue for that)

1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
   definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

2. MUST NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
   definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1070 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 13 September 2019 00:36:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:20 UTC