OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: Contsraints for start and end markers and codes was: Re: [xliff] RE: Resolution proposal/Call for Dissent Re: [xliff] mrk translate outside the content but in scope


Hi David, all,

> However, I think that static Constraints  are more naturally 
> expressed using the wording with REQUIRED/OPTIONAL than the 
> verb variants MUST/MAY.
> ...
> This said, I can live with the MUST formulations if you or 
> others are not convinced by the above reasoning for the 
> REQUIRED formulations, because they are after all equivalent.

Good to know you MAY live with it if you MUST.

In addition to the reasoning stated, the current text in this definition uses MUST in cspr02.
I think we should not change text when it's not necessary.


> [BTW, I have been doing these reformulations
> from MUST to REQUIRED in Constraints as part of the normative 
> language rehaul after csprd01)]

In the csp02 draft there is about 17 Constraints sections in the core and 18 in the modules.
In those 35 sections I've found:
- 9 occurrences of REQUIRED, OPTIONAL or with OPTIONAL+REQUIRED
- 21 MUST/MUST NOT
- 9 OPTIONAL with MUST/MUST NOT
- 4 SHOULD

My count is probably off by a few, but it's clear that the constraints after csp01 are still overwhelmingly using the MUST/etc.
terms. That's fine with me: I don't think we should change text that doesn't need to be changed.

Cheers,
-ys




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]