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

Chris Lilley wrote:
> 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.

We do not plan to change informative sections to normative sections, in 
order to avoid breaking conformance.

Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 20:49:57 UTC