Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. Network Working Group S. Bradner Request for Comments: 2119 Harvard University BCP: 14 March 1997 Category: Best Current Practice Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
PLML: Pattern Language Markup Language. Microformats. Keywords, Magic and (E)DSLs. Imagine you could write programs with text like this: aJanitor open: aDoor with: aKey. Pretty sweet. How might the implementation of open:with: look? Like this: self insert: aKey into: aDoor; turn: aKey; push: aDoor. Imagine how productive you could be if you could write code this way. A big part of the reason why Smalltalk is so great is this keyword message syntax (blocks help a lot, too, as we shall see). No Magic There's more to it than just ease or reading and writing, though. One kind of magic is a little bit of laziness around choosing alternatives. If(condition){this.doOneThing();} else {this.doAnotherThing();} and we can be confident that one thing or the other will happen, but not both.
Anyway, imagine that Java were an OO language and that if, therefore, were a method. If(condition, {doOneThing();}, {doAnotherThing();}); which kind-of suggests that both the one thing and the other would get done. aDoor isAlarmed ifTrue: [self disarm: aDoor] ifFalse: [self openNormally: aDoor]. Life With Alacrity: Using 5-Star Rating Systems. In Collective Choice: Rating Systems I discuss ratings scales of various sorts, from eBay's 3-point scale to RPGnet's double 5-point scale, and BoardGame Geek's 10-point scale.
Of the various ratings scales, 5-point scales are probably the most common on the Internet. You can find them not just in my own RPGnet, but also on Amazon, Netflix, and iTunes, as well as many other sites and services. Unfortunately 5-point rating scales also face many challenges in their use, and different studies suggest different flaws with this particular methodology. First, one study using Amazon data has shown that many undetailed ratings (where the rater isn't required to add any additional information other than the rating they select) show a bimodal distribution. In other words the distribution of ratings tends to cluster around two different numbers (e.g., 1 and 5) rather than offering a normal distribution where the ratings cluster around a single height (e.g., 3).
Music Ratings - iTunes Rated 4 - Great. Semantic Versioning. Software: RFC: What is Stop Energy? Posted by Dave Winer, 4/25/02 at 10:11:08 AM. This is one of those terms I've been using casually, it's time to try to write a definition. Suppose someone, call him Mr. A, has an idea that he believes is ready to deploy, or is requesting comments as he is getting ready to deploy. So he posts an RFC, usually on a mail list or a website, in the hope that people will spot a problem and help him figure out a solution; or find no problems and co-develop an implementation, or develop a compatible implementation. In this scenario, A is a proponent of Forward Motion. Stop Energy is not reasoned, it never takes into account the big picture, it is the mirror image of Forward Motion.
In my experience, FM only happens when no one else is interested enough to mount a SE campaign; or if the proponent of FM simply ignores the SE. Just for fun I decided to make this an RFC.