Re: XLink 1.1: RFC 2119 conformance

/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ section 3 and 3.3 are
| contradictory with respect to the keywords "optional" and "should, the
| latter section refers to "should" as indicating "optional" features,
| this is incorrect usage of RFC 2119 terminology, please change the
| document such that it complies with the requirements in RFC 2119.

What do you think is contradictory, exactly?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.