-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
Correct the wording in the conformance document section 2.3 "Naming Conventions" #226
Comments
I agree with this and am happy with the PR. |
likewise, I think this correction should be made. |
@DocOtak I love RFC2119 and fully support using it fastidiously. It's been a great help to me in numerous requirements documents. I do believe that migrating the document to use those terms correctly and consistently would be a larger effort that, if desired, should be a separate "project" since it's so wide-reaching. Maybe this would be an appropriate item for the backlog to be discussed e.g. at the annual meeting and implemented as its own issue? |
Using well-defined definitions for these terms sounds like a good idea, as well as, perhaps, reviewing the terms in the main conventions document. @erget's suggestions for discussing this in it's own right, as opposed to discussing it on this ticket, sounds like th right way forward, to me. Perhaps there are terms in the main conventions document that could/should be changed, too. |
Merging this so that it goes in to CF-1.8. Thanks. |
Title: Correct the wording in the conformance document section 2.3 "Naming Conventions"
Moderator: @RosalynHatcher
Requirement Summary: The conventions say, in section 2.3, that "Variable, dimension, attribute and group names should begin with a letter, ...", but the conformance document says must instead of should for checking this. The Conventions document is correct (see also Trac Ticket 157 https://cfconventions.org/Data/Trac-tickets/157.html), so the conformance document needs changing.
Technical Proposal Summary: Change "must" to "should" in that part of the conformance document, and move the whole sentence to "recommendations" (from "requirements")
Benefits: Everyone, as the checker will better reflect the conventions
Status Quo: Compliant files may fail the checks.
Detailed Proposal: PR to follow
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: