This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The text lacks any reference to RFC 2119 for requirements language, even though RFC 2119 is cited in its references. Without normative invocation of RFC 2119, the meaning of "must" and other requirements language is unknown. BTW, the use of lower case "must" in this document (some 104 times), leaves me uncertain as to whether it was meant to be UPPERCASE MUST, which in RFCs signals a requirement or was meant to be a lowercase must, which signals only necessity. I don't know the draft well enough to suggest which cases are which. The better convention is to follow the RFCs and use UPPERCASE MUST where a requirement is being stated.
I failed to note that XQuery 3.1 does follow the RFC 2119 conventions and so for consistency, so should the other drafts in this group.
(In reply to Patrick Durusau from comment #1) > I failed to note that XQuery 3.1 does follow the RFC 2119 conventions and so > for consistency, so should the other drafts in this group. I believe XPath 3.1 does as well.
The working group discussed this bug in the teleconference on 2015-03-17 and agreed the fix... 1) add the RFC 2119 sentence to the conformance section of XPath. 2) capitalize MUST NOT in the conformance section Many thanks for raising this.