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 >
