W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: ACTION-295: Should v. Must

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:08:46 +0200
Message-ID: <50810A8E.3030503@xs4all.nl>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 10/19/12 12:47 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> That is why, when Berin cautioned that a group of regulators or
> legislators or a judicial process would interpret these words
> more forcefully, our response was that they are INTENDED to be
> interpreted forcefully -- they are requirements of the protocol.
> That is why we have a normative reference to RFC2119.

I agree wholeheartedly and also have to confess I was rather puzzled by
the ease with which terminology that has been around for a long time and
formalised in 1997 in a period in which a great deal of internet
standards came to fruition all of a sudden was dismissed as too vague.


Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 08:09:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:07 UTC