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

On Friday, November 23, 2007, 5:13:18 AM, Thierry wrote:

TM> Dear Chris Lilley  ,

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

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

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

TM> Thanks,

TM> For the SYMM Working Group,
TM> Thierry Michel
TM> W3C Staff Contact

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


TM> =====

TM> Your *initial* comment on Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL
TM> 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


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

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

Thanks, that is a lot clearer.

TM> To respond to your issue,the group has added a statement to the
TM> "Conformance" section stating that the RFC2119 words do not have any
TM> conformance-level meaning.
TM> The group will make sure that whatever is referred to from informative
TM> sections is properly defined - with corresponding conformance level -
TM> in the normative sections and vice versa.

Sounds good.

TM> The group has identified a large number of required modifications
TM> related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
TM> reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
TM> The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.

Are any of those changes going to affect conformance? If for example they are all in informative sections then they would not, and I would be satisfied.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 18:54:36 UTC