Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Dear Chris Lilley  ,

The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the latest (response) comment you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized
Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send
us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at www-smil@w3.org
if you agree with it or not before 02 nov 2007. In case of disagreement,
you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a
consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be
achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the SYMM Working Group,
Thierry Michel
W3C Staff Contact

  1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0106.html
  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/


=====

Your *initial* comment on Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL
3.0)...:
> Hello www-smil,
>
> While reading
>
> Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0)
> W3C Working Draft 13 July 2007
>
> I noticed several instances of the word 'must' in informative sections.
> This is problematic, due to the common usage of 'must' as a conformance
> requirement in W3C specifications.
>
> Please either
>
> a) reword these sections to avoid 'must', or
> b) add clarificatory wording regarding use of 'must' in the
> specification as a whole and noting any relationship to RFC 2119, or
> c) consider making some of the informative sections normative, if
> 'must' is indeed used as a conformance requirement in some cases


Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1814):
---------------------------------------

Add/Replace the following text to the "Conformance" section:
<<The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in the normative parts of
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In informative sections the meaning of these words is aligned with the
requirement level of the corresponding normative sections, whereas - in
case of ambiguity - the text in the normative section takes precedence
over the informative section. The intent of the informative section is
to refine and clarify the normative text.
For readability, these keywords do not appear in all uppercase letters
in this specification.>>

To respond to your issue,the group has added a statement to the
"Conformance" section stating that the RFC2119 words do not have any
conformance-level meaning.
The group will make sure that whatever is referred to from informative
sections is properly defined - with corresponding conformance level -
in the normative sections and vice versa.
The group has identified a large number of required modifications
related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.

----

Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 04:13:37 UTC