[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must


--- Comment #7 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
It's certainly true that (a) the use of "must" within F+O is a mess, (b) that
it's not easy to sort out, and (c) that the mess does very little practical

The messiness arises in a number of separate ways.

(a) The definitions of the terms are not directly linked to RFC2119; indeed,
RFC2119 is not cited, normatively or otherwise.

(b) There are three different renditions used for the word "must": normal text,
bold text, and hyperlinked text. The use of bold and hyperlinked rendition
appears to be interchangeable.

(c) The word "must" sometimes refers to the implementation/processor, and
sometimes to the caller of a function (as in, "a '$' sign must be escaped as
'\$'".) The latter usage "A must be B" is shorthand for "if A is not B, the
function raises a dynamic error". This is a very convenient shorthand, but it's
not closely related to the usage described in the RFC definition nor the F+O
definition of "must".

(d) The use of "must" isn't directly linked to conformance criteria for the
spec. This relates to the fact that F+O doesn't actually have any conformance
criteria, on the theory that it is designed to be referenced from other specs
rather than to be free-standing.

I will propose a way forward in the next message.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 20 April 2015 23:24:46 UTC