- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:00:16 +0300
- To: public-iri@w3.org
25.08.2011 23:51, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > <hat type='individual'/> > > On 8/22/11 5:00 PM, Chris Weber wrote: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/70> >> >> Does this working group and the document editors agree that a "SHOULD" >> is the most appropriate here? If so this issue can be closed. > The current text is: > > New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD > have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that > available with already registered URI/IRI schemes. > > I think "SHOULD" is fine. I think "MUST" would be problematic because it > would lead to fruitless arguments about whether the utility of the > scheme is truly clear and whether the community that would benefit from > registration of the scheme is truly broad. I suppose you can remove "SHOULD" and put "should" here. That requirement is scoped to subjective evaluation of a reviewer and may not employ 2119 language. Mykyta > > Peter >
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 04:00:13 UTC