RE: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

I think they should all be in caps. Are there ones in places other than the ones Doug caught already?

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and WS-RM Policy WD 9

The keywords are not just in section 5. That was just an example. There are in few other places too.

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> As you point out, it isn't really a problem per se as it is. So I'd say don't worry about the Sec. 5 2119 terms for now. Correct whatever stays or is added from 121 instead. 
> 
> Marc Goodner
> (425) 703-1903
> (Sent from Windows Mobile 5.0)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: "ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org" 
> <ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: 6/7/06 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Fw: [ws-rx] Comments on WS-RM WD 13 and 
> WS-RM Policy WD 9
> 
> Looks ok to me.
> 
> 
> I did a search for the 2119 lowercase keywords ('may', 'should' ...) 
> and found that there are instances where they are not capitalized (for 
> example, in the sec consideration section). If these were intended to 
> be
> 2119 keywords then to be consistent with our typographical convention 
> we should capitalize them. If not, we should find suitable alternatives.
> 2119 does *not* require the keywords to be capitalized, so leaving 
> them as is imply that they are to be interpreted in the same way as 
> their capitalized brethren.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Doug Davis wrote:
> 
>>ok - Marc (editors), see if this version looks ok to you.
>>-Doug