Re: rfc2119 & LC-67 [was: Re: Proposed text for Section 3.1]

I agree, that we shouldn't legislate how to properly use the 2119 keywords 
- I think that Susan L. may already be doing that, with her 
comment.   However, I think we must be able to explain why we believe that 
we are using these keywords appropriately.  For SpecGL and TestGL, the 
rationale may be easier than for OpsGL.  The rationale being, satisfying 
these checkpoints ensure that developers of Specifications will write the 
specification in a manner that will enable and enhance interoperability.

happy Easter

At 10:10 AM 4/19/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Upon thinking about this a little more:
>** I'm convinced that we should NOT, in SpecGL, try to legislate how to 
>properly use the 2119 keywords;
>** "how to use 'em" -- it sounds like a Technique, no?
>So, a constructive proposal...
>I think it would be interesting for someone to develop a Note about this 
>-- application and appropriate use of RFC2119 keywords across the diverse 
>spectrum of W3C standards.  As I said (below), I think RFC2119 is written 
>with a particular mind set about the scope of things to which it would be 
>applied.  At the fringes or outside of that implicit scope, some creative 
>interpretation is required.
>Such a Note could be linked from ExTech.
>Who is the "someone" to write it?  A collaboration between us (QAWG) and 
>Comm comes to mind.
>Proposed resolution of #67:
>1.) SpecGL should not try to legislate how to properly use the 2119 keywords;
>2.) "how to use" would fall in the domain of SpecET, and should be 
>implemented by developing a W3C Note about it (perhaps as QAWG/Comm 

Received on Saturday, 19 April 2003 13:47:43 UTC