- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 10:05:26 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8fecw9zSU_AiYv87yA1gB-XMUDhWgJCYf3MkVv2wR-o4A@mail.gmail.com>
I will admit that this is really not my concern at this point. I think there's a lot of questions around the substantive issues ("what should be allowed / what should not be allowed"). If we can get past those substantive issues then I'm fine with people re-wording it however they like to make it fit into an overall better flow / structure. On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Ian Fette wrote: > >The entire spec is already structured around having general principles and > >exceptions to these principles (in the form of permitted uses and > >user-granted exceptions). I really don't find this to be that different, > >but I don't care. I was asked to draft text, I'm certainly open to > >suggestions / changes / friendly amendments. I will say though that I > don't > >share your view of this being problematic from a 2119 perspective. > > It's not really a view, RFC 2119 is quite explicit that "Imperatives of > the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly." In > particular that means one should not use them when it is not necessary; > it is not necessary to use them to reflect on or re-state requirements; > that is how your proposal uses them, as far as I can tell, and that is > not okay, by the quoted requirement. > > As for the structuring, the Compliance document is full of references > like "unless it falls under an exemption", "this is except as allowed > by permitted uses stated elsewhere in this specification", and so on. > Precisely to avoid the impression that some requirement is an absolute, > only to find it overridden elsewhere in the document. > > I might be able to make some suggestions how to rephrase the proposal, > but I would need confirmation that my understanding, as I explained it, > is correct. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:05:57 UTC