- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:11:17 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote: > The first part of LC-67 [1] asks, "must all [conformance > requirements] use RFC2119 keywords?" > > This was originally addressed, including a proposed resolution, in > email [2]. It was further discussed a bit at the Crete f2f without > resolution [3]. > > Alternatives: > ----- > > At the face-to-face, these alternatives seemed most popular: > > Alt.1: yes, per the current wording of the (priority 1) SpecGL > CP13.1 [4] and its rationale, all specifications must use the > RFC2119 keywords [in the statement of conformance requirements]. > > Alt.2: no, the RFC2119 keywords are the recommended and preferred way, but > other language is permitted (e.g., marked-up imperative voice statements), > as long as the spec unambiguously defines what are its conformance > requirements and how are they identified in the text. > > Alt.3: as Alt.3, but the spec must particularly define the correspondence > between its normative language scheme and the RFC2119 keywords. Specs SHOULD use RFC 2119, IMO. I am surprised the issue is worth debating. Clearly, some specs may want to have more conformance levels than a single level offered by RFC 2119. In RFC 2119 "SHOULD" means "MUST implement -or- MUST have reasons not to implement", and "MAY" means "MUST implement -or- MUST NOT implement". HTTP/1.1 tries to make two conformance levels out of RFC 2119, but I believe it was an over-engineering mistake, and it did not really affect implementations (everybody tries to implement MUSTs and implements SHOULDs if it is not too much trouble). Someday, I would like to write an RFC 2119 update clarifying the above and including an accurate conformance statement for RFC 2119 users to cut-and-paste. > ** Pro Alt.1: per the rationale at [4], this forces spec writers to > unambiguously indicate what are the conformance requirements, and > makes it very easy for implementers, test builders, etc to find the > conformance requirements. Hmm... The rationale at [4] (Checkpoint 13.1) is already covered by formal requirement of Checkpoint 13.2! HTH, Alex. -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 13:11:20 UTC