comment on XML ID appendix E

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

comment on XML ID appendix E

Jeremy Carroll


I have a comment on

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/#id-avn



Specifically the text:

[[

Note:

For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc."
href="#dt-must">should</a>
]]

I suggest

[[
Note (normative):

For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc."
href="#dt-must">should</a>
]]

or

[[

Note:

For interoperability, document producers are advised to
]]


would be better.

(i.e. in my view, it is good policy to only use the RFC 2119 keywords
with their full force in normative text. In informative text, it is best
to avoid the keywords, lest their be confusion as to the intended force
of the statement).

I have a mild preference for the former change - I think this 'should'
does deserve RFC 2119 force.

Jeremy


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: comment on XML ID appendix E

Grosso, Paul

While I take your point, I note that all of Appendix E
is non-normative, and I don't believe we can (or should)
try to indicate that a note in a non-normative appendix
is normative.

I don't think having this one "should" be 2119-ized is
particularly confusing, but if we do issue a new edition
of XML ID, we could consider de-2119-ifying it.

paul
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: Monday, 2007 December 10 9:33
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: comment on XML ID appendix E
>
> I have a comment on
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-xml-id-20050909/#id-avn
>
> Specifically the text:
>
> [[
>
> Note:
>
> For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc."
> href="#dt-must">should</a>
> ]]
>
> I suggest
>
> [[
> Note (normative):
>
> For interoperability, document producers <a title="Must, May, etc."
> href="#dt-must">should</a>
> ]]
>
> or
>
> [[
>
> Note:
>
> For interoperability, document producers are advised to
> ]]
>
>
> would be better.
>
> (i.e. in my view, it is good policy to only use the RFC 2119 keywords
> with their full force in normative text. In informative text,
> it is best
> to avoid the keywords, lest their be confusion as to the
> intended force of the statement).
>
> I have a mild preference for the former change - I think this
> 'should' does deserve RFC 2119 force.
>
> Jeremy