- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 13:05:53 +0100
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
the XSLT draft (at least) always uses must as MUST and states at the top that In this specification the words must, must not, should, should not, may, required, and recommended are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Xpath draft (at least) seems to use must in a less defined manner. It would probably be clearer if RFC 2119 usage was followed where appropriate and some word other than must used otherwise. The usage that caught my eye initially was the following use of must which is incorrect irrespective of the RFC. section 3.5: When an XPath expression is written within an XML document, the XML escaping rules for special characters must be followed; thus "<" must be written as "<". The first must could be a MUST, < must be escaped, but the second must is false, I could use < for example. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 08:06:16 UTC