- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:15:08 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Hi, I'm a bit confused about the semantics of the interaction between RFC 2119 requirements levels and the "point categorization" system currently in webarch. It seems they're at odds in places, since they're not orthogonal concepts. For example ... Does a SHOULD in a "good practice" have the same weight as a SHOULD in a "principle"? Can a good practice use MUST? (e.g. URI Opacity) If "SHOULD" *does* mean something different in a good practice than in a principle, I feel that the use of RFC 2119 should be dropped because it's obviously not being followed. If not, I'd say that the categorization system needs reworking to ensure that the categories posess no requirements level semantics, either explicitly (by definition) or implicitly (by name). FWIW, my personal preference would be to drop the use of 2119, because I believe that what webarch is trying to communicate requires finer grained requirements levels than 2119 offers. Thanks. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2003 00:10:57 UTC