insisting on the importance of using the description field

[Bonnarel]

The description field may be a way for human readers to distinguish between links sharing the same semantic tag and content-type. the "should" is replaced by a more suggesting "SHOULD". Tackled in pull request #18

[mbtaylor]

I don't object to the change, but note that in the Conformance-related definitions section at the head of the document, it expicitly says "(in upper or lower case)" about usage of terms like SHOULD, so the meaning of the text is not changed by this edit.

[Bonnarel]

Hi Mark I agree that this change is only visual. But in that case it has better chance to be noticed by implementers. The capital letter insistance is related to a closeby addition in the sentence : it is intended for display by interactive applications*and very important to help user distinguish links with same semantics (see below)**.* REgards François Le 23/11/2019 à 12:34, Mark Taylor a écrit :

…

I don't object to the change, but note that in the /Conformance-related definitions/ section at the head of the document, it expicitly says "(in upper or lower case)" about usage of terms like SHOULD, so the meaning of the text is not changed by this edit. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#16?email_source=notifications&email_token=AMP5LTDD2OYC3FYDUO56YLLQVEINZA5CNFSM4JCISLFKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEE7TJHQ#issuecomment-557790366>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMP5LTD2YRG7NNCXT2D6JELQVEINZANCNFSM4JCISLFA>.

[Bonnarel]

Done with merge of PR #18