[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Deliverable: odf-diff?
2008/6/22 marbux <email@example.com>: >> Not quite Paul. 2.4.1 >> An attribute value that 'should be' a QNAME as per xml 1.0 >> A should be, not verifiable by a validation against the spec. > > Not sure I understand here. "Should" doesn't create a normative > requirement. It's only a recommendation and a document can be > conformant without the implementation/document abiding by the > recommendation. So the way I understand it, one could test whether > "should" has been done but the test result doesn't relate to > conformance. I'm interpreting a 'may' etc as test it, but you can't fail anything without a 'shall' or 'must'. (Right or wrong I don't know). It was the XML geekery I referred to. The spec is littered with may. W3C is shifting to recognising 'implementation dependent' but becoming smart about how it's used. Makes for portable specs with good implementations. > > Lapsing into an area where I have more expertise, there's a WTO > Appellate Body ruling on the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade > holding that a technical standard must: [i] fully specify all > characteristics [ii] only in mandatory "must" and "must" terms [iii] > of an identifiable product or group of products. That doesn't mean you > can't have any options at all, the way I understand it, but you have > to be really careful about how you word them and "should" really > belongs only in in a best practices guide rather than in a standard. +1 I'm moving towards a spec full of 'shall' language with a supporting cast of why we mandate it this is how a user uses it etc. I.e. fully normative/informative texts. > Am I misunderstanding what you meant? No, the XML use doesn't make for a normative clause either; regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk