Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Informative clauses

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/23 Radoslav Dejanović <radoslav.dejanovic@opsus.hr>:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> What to do about a clause such as
>>
>> 2.4.2 Base Settings
>>
>> The <config:config-item> element contains all base settings. The value
>> of the setting is stored in the element.
>>
>> This is (barely) informative.
>> No shall.
>> No may
>> Not marked as informative.
>
> Would it be too much to assume that any clause that doesn't specify
> "may" (that is, specifically tells us that there is a choice or "free
> will" of some sort) - simply be considered obligatory?


I think that is presumptive. It would misinterpret the standard?
If the author had wanted a shall or must surely he|she would
have put one in there?

Would a translation into 'informative' be similarly a misinterpretation?


This is one I'd report back as unclear to the main TC.


It needs 'translating' certainly, a danger being that
different implementers would read it differently,
as we have done.

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk