- From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:50:50 -0700
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > 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',
Sorry, do you mean in a version other than 20010330 or in that one?
> and
> included some qualifying remarks. 2119 really isn't appropriate in my
> view.
Just a thought. In [1] you could say:
Some of the key words of [RFC2119] are defined in Part 2:
Datatypes. Some are unused. None have special meaning in Part 1:
Structures nor do any in XML Schema refer to the RFC.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xmlschema-1-20010330/#intro-terminology
But of course you know your specification and users better than I do.
--
Susan Lesch - mailto:lesch@w3.org tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) - http://www.w3.org/
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2001 01:50:55 UTC