Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

AS2-Vocab section 5.6 "microsyntaxes" contains normative text in non-normative section #622

Open
trwnh opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@trwnh
Copy link

trwnh commented Nov 15, 2024

From https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#microsyntaxes

This section is non-normative.

While such microsyntaxes MAY be used within the values of the content, name, and summary properties on an Activity Streams Object, implementations SHOULD NOT be required to parse the values of those properties in order to determine the appropriate routing of notifications, categorization or linking between objects. Instead, publishers SHOULD make appropriate use of the vocabulary terms provided specifically for these purposes.

proposed outcome

either:

  • lift this bit of text out of the non-normative section and put it into a normative section (perhaps by making the section normative then making a new subsection 5.6.1 be non-normative examples)
  • remove use of normative text

errata? next version?

@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Nov 22, 2024

So, this probably deserves more research on how the W3C manages normative language like MAY, MUST, SHOULD in non-normative sections. I will research that editorial policy and we can make an erratum to bring this section in line with W3C best practices.

I think it makes a lot of sense to call out that there are addressing properties already defined by AS2 Vocabulary which are preferable for delivery and routing. However, at least one tag object type, Hashtag, is widely used for delivery and routing, and it's possible to do routing by other properties (content, summary, name). So, non-normative guidance here is probably preferable to normative SHOULD NOT language.

@evanp evanp added Needs erratum We need to add an erratum Waiting for Commenter labels Nov 22, 2024
@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Nov 25, 2024

W3C best practice is to avoid using RFC2119 language, even if it's used in lowercase, in non-normative text. Various other phrasings can be used, depending on the specifics of the text in question.

Second-best practice is to make sure that non-normative use of RFC2119 terms always puts it in lowercase ... but humans very often interpret the lowercase as if it were uppercase; hence the best practice, above.

@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Dec 20, 2024

Erratum created here: #627

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants