Merge pull request #622 from wking/rfc-2119-wording

README: Use recommended RFC 2119 wording
This commit is contained in:
Daniel, Dao Quang Minh 2016-11-14 18:08:49 -08:00 committed by GitHub
commit 780fc67f04
1 changed files with 3 additions and 2 deletions

View File

@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ Table of Contents
- [Windows-specific Configuration](config-windows.md)
- [Glossary](glossary.md)
In the specifications in the above table of contents, the keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) (Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997).
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119][rfc2119].
The keywords "unspecified", "undefined", and "implementation-defined" are to be interpreted as described in the [rationale for the C99 standard][c99-unspecified].
The key words "unspecified", "undefined", and "implementation-defined" are to be interpreted as described in the [rationale for the C99 standard][c99-unspecified].
An implementation is not compliant for a given CPU architecture if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST, REQUIRED, or SHALL requirements for the protocols it implements.
An implementation is compliant for a given CPU architecture if it satisfies all the MUST, REQUIRED, and SHALL requirements for the protocols it implements.
@ -168,3 +168,4 @@ Read more on [How to Write a Git Commit Message](http://chris.beams.io/posts/git
[c99-unspecified]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C99RationaleV5.10.pdf#page=18
[UberConference]: https://www.uberconference.com/opencontainers
[irc-logs]: http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/eavesdrop/%23opencontainers/
[rfc2119]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119