Subject: PaceReduceMustMay

From: Mark Pilgrim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:12:01 -0400

This "Pace" only lists two vague proposals:

"""
1. First pass: de-emphasize RFC2119 imperatives where used for content
models or markup syntax.
2. Second pass: rephrase for easier reading using a less formal tone.
"""

I'm all for #1, using RFC 2119 terminology correctly, but this Pace is
utterly lacking in specifics.

I'm against #2.  This is not a junior high school essay; it's a
specification.  If you want to read a junior high school essay
masquerading as a specification, I think we all know where to find
one.

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:12:08 -0700

>2. Second pass: rephrase for easier reading using a less formal tone.

The first step is good. Protocol history in the IETF has shown the 
fewer requirements in the final spec, the more the actual 
requirements will stand out.

The second step is very bad. We really, really want to follow RFC 
2119 wording if we want this to be a standards-track RFC.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:18:10 -0400

> utterly lacking in specifics.

What do we use? DTD, XSD, RNG, Schematron...

Otherwise, it sounds good as long as the Notational Conventions section 
makes it clear that the schema is not normative.

Ken has reminded us that:

"The decision factor for using a schema language as a
*notation* is lower than the decision factor for having a normative
schema.  WebDAV, for example, uses DTD notation for speccing element
models but does not have a normative DTD (since that would restrict
Namespace usage and enforce insignificant element ordering)."

> I'm against #2.

There's no concrete direction here. I promise to read everything out 
loud before I submit it ;)

Robert Sayre