[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sarif] Re: Research on keyword usage
Sorry for the typos. Yes, in my point #1 I meant “ISO-readiness”, and in my point #3 I meant SHALL, not SHOULD. And in my point #4, I meant we should discuss my point #3 (maintaining current wording), not “Issue #3”. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Keaton Larry, One thing to keep in mind is that capitalization is irrelevant to ISO, so differently-capitalized instances of the same word all mean the same thing in the ISO context. I think there is some confusion here: On 01/16/2018 12:19 PM, Larry Golding (Comcast) wrote: > 1. *David*: Would you please add an agenda item for the next TC meeting > to discuss whether “OASIS readiness” is an explicit goal of the > first public release of the SARIF standard. Yes, I will, but I think you mean "ISO readiness." > 3. *SARIF TC*: I propose to leave the existing wording in the spec as > is. The Terminology section states explicitly that capitalized SHALL > and MUST have their RFC 2119/8174 meanings, and the spec does indeed > use those keywords as defined in RFC 2119. I think the > capitalization is sufficient to alert both native non-native English > speaking to the special meaning of those terms. And if we were going > to standardize on one or the other, ISO conformance would have us > use SHOULD throughout. I think you mean "shall" instead of "should" in the last sentence. > 4. *David*: Would you please add an agenda item for the next TC meeting > to allow discussion of #3? I will move that the wording be > maintained, and that will give anybody the opportunity to speak in > debate on that point. Just to make sure I understand this, do you mean this issue? https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/issues/3 David |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]