W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2016

[Bug 29498] [FO31] Some normative RFC 2119 MAY/SHOULD etc appear in non-normative Notes, RFC itself is not mentioned in conformance section

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 10:34:30 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29498-523-gE6T20cEQk@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
The current situation was arrived at as the resolution of bug #28011 which was
extensively debated.

The reason F+O does not reference RFC 2119 is that it does not use the words
MUST, MAY, and SHOULD with their RFC meaning. Instead it uses them as defined
in section


Note that this section has been completely rewritten since the CR.

The essential difference is that the RFC 2119 definitions invariable place
requirements either on a processor (a piece of software claiming conformance)
or on documents (a piece of text that may or may not be valid according to the
specification). In F+O we use them mainly to place requirements on the caller
of a function ("the prefix MUST be declared in the in-scope namespaces"); and
failure to satisfy a MUST condition is not a non-conformance issue, it is
something that simply causes a function to throw a dynamic error.

In addition, it has long been a policy of the WG that F+O does not state
conformance requirements; since RFC 2119 is all about conformance, referring to
it would therefore be inappropriate.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 10:34:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:59 UTC