- From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 23:49:50 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: Olle Olsson <olleo@w3.org>
Hi, I would like to have a minor issue clarified. In "XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML" (W3C REC 31 May 2001, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ ), in section 2, "Conformance Definition", (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html) we find, in the introduction, the following statement: <excerpt> The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. </excerpt> This wording confused me, as I do not see any occurrences of uppercase "MUST", etc. in the REC. Two possible interpretations: (1) "well, no harm putting this statement in the doc, event though it does not apply to anything there." (2) "actually, this statement refers to _all_ occurrences of "must", etc., in lower case as well as any other "cased" variants thereof." If the second alternative is the correct one, then one has to be very careful when reading the REC. It of easy to regard "shall" as nice syntactic suger in the language, while "SHALL" definitely raises a warning flag. I would be thankful for a clarification of how the excerpt reproduced above applies to this REC. regards, /olle -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olle Olsson olleo@sics.se Tel: +46 8 633 15 19 Fax: +46 8 751 72 30 [Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org] SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science] Box 1263 SE - 164 29 Kista Sweden ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 04:25:03 UTC