On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 09:17, Maxime Buquet wrote:
> On 2023/01/18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > On 1/18/23 9:26 AM, Thilo Molitor wrote:
> > > In Appendix F: Requirements Conformance all our XEPs refer to RFC 2119
> defining
> > > "MUST", "SHALL" etc.
> > > But since RFC 2119 does not specify
On 2023/01/18, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/18/23 9:26 AM, Thilo Molitor wrote:
> > In Appendix F: Requirements Conformance all our XEPs refer to RFC 2119
> > defining
> > "MUST", "SHALL" etc.
> > But since RFC 2119 does not specify which case should be used for these
> > keywords, a XEP using
I did not meant to be rude, it was merely a sign of surprise.
-tmolitor
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2023, 21:56:43 CET schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
> Or: hey, it's great that we already did the work, let's merge it!
>
> On 1/18/23 12:46 PM, Thilo Molitor wrote:
> > So the PR is lying around for ~5
Or: hey, it's great that we already did the work, let's merge it!
On 1/18/23 12:46 PM, Thilo Molitor wrote:
So the PR is lying around for ~5 years and nobody merged it even if it was
approved?
Why that?
-tmolitor
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2023, 18:45:30 CET schrieb Florian Schmaus:
On
So the PR is lying around for ~5 years and nobody merged it even if it was
approved?
Why that?
-tmolitor
Am Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2023, 18:45:30 CET schrieb Florian Schmaus:
> On 18/01/2023 17.26, Thilo Molitor wrote:
> > In Appendix F: Requirements Conformance all our XEPs refer to RFC 2119
>
On 18/01/2023 17.26, Thilo Molitor wrote:
In Appendix F: Requirements Conformance all our XEPs refer to RFC 2119 defining
"MUST", "SHALL" etc.
But since RFC 2119 does not specify which case should be used for these
keywords, a XEP using "shall" or even "sHaLl" uses normative keywords, no?
I
On 1/18/23 9:26 AM, Thilo Molitor wrote:
In Appendix F: Requirements Conformance all our XEPs refer to RFC 2119 defining
"MUST", "SHALL" etc.
But since RFC 2119 does not specify which case should be used for these
keywords, a XEP using "shall" or even "sHaLl" uses normative keywords, no?
My
