W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [SpecGL] 1044 - Case of RFC2119 terms

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:38:53 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>,'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 04:08 PM 3/17/2005 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 14 mars 2005, ŗ 05:25, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
>>To accommodate Lofton's remark - which makes sense to me-, we could say:
>>"They are usually" in stead of "they may be"
>Using RFC 2119 [RFC2119] Keywords (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, ...) makes it easy 
>to spot conformance requirements; according to the RFC itself, they should 
>be used only to establish interoperation [WIKI-RFC-KEYWORDS]. They are 
>usually written with an uppercase formatting.

W3C Process Document uses bold instead of upper case, and I actually think 
it is better (more obvious to spot).  Maybe we should say instead,  "They 
are usually written with distinctive formatting, such as upper case or 
bold."  (The rest is okay.)

What do you think?


>  It's a good idea to create a specific markup for them too.   It will be 
> easier to extract conformance requirements and better for accessibility 
> (See the Manual of Style).
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 14:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:38 UTC