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 "shall" or even "sHaLl" uses normative keywords, no? > > My personal practice in writing RFCs has been to studiously avoid lowercase > conformance terms. It's quite easy and natural in English to use other > words: might instead of MAY, ought instead of SHOULD, etc. But it seems that > most authors are too lazy to do this, which is why we ended up with RFC > 8174.
I'd like to nuance this here. Not everybody has english as their native language and many contribute to standardization nonetheless. Maybe standardization should be made more accessible, and I think 8174 is an ok step towards this, rather than having to be careful about subtle nuances of the language.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
