RE: [xliff] Minor comments on the specifications

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf
> Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:52 AM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Minor comments on the specifications
> 
> Hi Rodolfo, all,
> 
> > I don't mind highlighting "must", "should", "may" etc.
> > All I would ask is to enclose them in <emphasis> so the stylesheets
> > work. Using <glossterm> is wrong, as we are explicitly not including a
> > glossary that defines those words, we rely on external documents.
> 
> Great. <emphasis> would be a plus.
> 
> What about simply uppercase? Less formatting and clearer (IMO).
> I know RFC 2119 doesn't say we SHOULD use uppercase, but many OASIS
> specifications do, as well as all W3C ones: readers of specifications are used
> to it and understand what it means.
> Just a thought.

I personally don't like the idea of highlighting those terms but I can live with that. Having to choose, I would prefer emphasizing them and not capitalizing. 

Having those special words written in capitals and lower case  in the same document may lead to the feeling that there are two different requirement levels. We cannot capitalize them, for example, in the copyright notice and status trms that must remain as OASIS wrote them.

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya       rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms       http://www.maxprograms.com