Re: XLink 1.1: RFC 2119 conformance

/ Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> was heard to say:
| / Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| | * Norman Walsh wrote:
| |>/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| |>|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ section 3 and 3.3 are
| |>| contradictory with respect to the keywords "optional" and "should, the
| |>| latter section refers to "should" as indicating "optional" features,
| |>| this is incorrect usage of RFC 2119 terminology, please change the
| |>| document such that it complies with the requirements in RFC 2119.
| |>
| |>What do you think is contradictory, exactly?
| |
| | Section 3.3 has 'for any optional conditions ("should" and "may")'. This
| | is a claim that both "should" and "may" mean "optional" where section 3
| | clearly states that "should" does not mean "optional".
|
| Does a proposal to replace:
|
|   2. for any optional conditions ("should" and "may") it chooses to
|      observe, it observes them in the way prescribed, and
|
| with
|
|   2. for any recommended or optional conditions ("should" and "may")
|      it chooses to observe, it observes them in the way prescribed,
|      and
|
| satisfy your concern?

I don't have any record of your response to this question. If we do
not hear back from you before 6 Jan 2006, we will conclude that you are
satisified.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.