- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 17 Apr 2001 05:58:35 +0100
- To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org> writes: > The terminology or conformance sections could explain that: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL > NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > [RFC2119]. > with RFC 2119 as a normative reference. If you don't want to use the > RFC, then you could explain why not. I've used the prose from XML 1.0 (2e) now for 'may' and 'must', and included some qualifying remarks. 2119 really isn't appropriate in my view. > The glossary in Structures should be cut. Perhaps it is automatically > generated and that would explain why some terms are never defined or > definitions refer to text not present in the glossary. For example: > "base wildcard > let the base wildcard be defined as" I'm working on improving the obviously silly ones, but have had positive feedback that those working from printed versions that this section is useful warts and all -- do you really think it should come out? ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 00:58:37 UTC