Re: Terminology - uppercased key words: proposal
I'm not sure about using UPPERCASE, but agree that
uses of the key terms in the specification need validating,
For example according to the terms, a requirement on the implementation
should use "shall"
and a requirement on the application should use "must".
I suspect there may be many instances where this is the wrong
way round.
If I get time before the spec review I will attempt a pass of the
document (although this stuff is simpler to report with paper and pen:-)
I would also encourage others to do so.
regards
Andrew
On May 9, 11:59pm in "Terminology - upperc", Alfonso De Gregorio wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> in my opinion, key words for use in LSB specifications, and
> specified in section 1.8 (Terminology), should be used uppercased.
>
> If we use, for example, the verb "must" we should discriminate
> something that is an absolute requirement of the specification
> (eg. "The __GROUP argument must be 0 or the behavior is undefined")
> from something that is necessary to be done (eg. "the full implications
> must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different
> course"). Analogous examples exist for the others key words.
>
> If you agree, we should review the current specifications paying
> a special attention to the real semantic of each key word instance,
> and replace the appropriate ones.
>
> Thanks,
> alfonso
>
Reply to: