Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA20388; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:59:43 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 1 May 1997 01:57:54 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA20336; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:57:51 -0400 Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA20327; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:57:48 -0400 Received: from cs.utk.edu by spot.cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id BAA02161; Thu, 1 May 1997 01:57:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199705010557.BAA02161@spot.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: Pete Resnick cc: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen), drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: From the Chair: How Reply SHOULD Work In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:39:31 CDT." Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 01:57:18 -0400 Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu > Human interface issues can almost by definition *not* be > interoperation issues. Putting in MUSTs or SHOULDs in reference to HI > issues is clearly out of line with 2119. I agree with this. Let's make it clear that user interface recommendations are just that -- recommendations. (e.g. use "should" only in lower case.) And let's put the recommendations about replies in an appendix which specifically states that it's not a requirement of the specification. But let's do include some recommendations about replies. Keith