- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:02:49 -0500
- To: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Nilo Mitra" <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <www-archive@w3.org>, frystyk@microsoft.com, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, carine@w3.org, ylafon@w3.org, ryuji@isl.mei.co.jp
There was an email thread following my post where all the participants agreed that SHOULD rather than MUST is the right level of compliance. We also agreed this in the concall. Reason is that the Text element is just for human readable stuff and isn't really an interop point of failure. If a receiver gets two Text elements with the same value for xml:lang the it can just pick one. Marc. On Thursday, Dec 12, 2002, at 10:36 US/Eastern, David Fallside wrote: > > > > > In our response to I18N on issue 263 > (http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x263), we said we > decided > that values of xml:lang on multiple Text elements MUST have different > values. However, in the spec, e.g. > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/12/CR/soap12- > part1.html#faultstringelement, > we say that these values SHOULD have different values. We (Carine, > Yves > and I) have been unable to find any record of a decision to use SHOULD > instead of MUST. Do any of you recall what happened here? > > > ............................................ > David C. Fallside, IBM > Ext Ph: 530.477.7169 > Int Ph: 544.9665 > fallside@us.ibm.com > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 11:03:10 UTC