CZ:Computers Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Supten Sarbadhikari |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Added RFC2119 conventions for protocol, etc., behavior description) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==What's happening right now in the Computers Workgroup?== | ==What's happening right now in the Computers Workgroup?== | ||
To find out, view this workgroup's [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category:Computers_Workgroup Recent Changes]. | To find out, view this workgroup's [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category:Computers_Workgroup Recent Changes]. | ||
==Starting on a style guide== | |||
''This probably belongs on its own page but I don't know the standard''. | |||
When describing optional, mandatory, or forbidden behavior of a [[protocol (computer)|protocol]] or comparable mechanism, key words to describe this behavior, to be written in ALL CAPs, are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels".<ref name=RFC2119>{{citation | |||
| title = Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels | |||
| author = S. Bradner | |||
| date = March 1997 |url = http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt}}</ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
<center><u>'''Key words for use in specifications to Indicate Requirement Levels'''</u></center> | |||
|- | |||
! Keyword | |||
! Meaning | |||
|- | |||
| MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED | |||
| Absolute requirements | |||
|- | |||
| MUST NOT, SHALL NOT | |||
| Absolute prohibition | |||
|- | |||
| SHOULD, RECOMMENDED | |||
| there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course | |||
|- | |||
| SHOULD NOT, NOT RECOMMENDED | |||
| there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when theparticular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label | |||
|- | |||
| MAY, OPTIONAL | |||
| Makes the feature truly optional and an implementation choice. Implementations that do not have the feature, howeever, MUST be able to interoperate with those that do not, and vice versa | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
Revision as of 19:24, 13 October 2008
Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata. |
|
| ||||||||
| Computers article | All articles (1,168) | To Approve (0) | Editors: active (3) / inactive (77) and Authors: active (814) / inactive (0) |
Workgroup Discussion | ||||
| Recent changes | Citable Articles (11) | |||||||
| Subgroups (11) | ||||||||
Checklist-generated categories:
Subpage categories:
|
Missing subpage categories:
Article statuses:
| ||||||||
The Computers Workgroup coordinates the Citizendium articles related to computers and computer science.
Help plan Computers Week!
Authoring
Anyone is welcome to participate in improving, or adding to, the Computers_Workgroup articles. To author for this workgroup, please add [[:Category:Computers Authors]] to the bottom of your user page so it appears on the Category:Computers Authors page. Likewise, Editors should have [[:Category:Computers Editors]] at the bottom of their user page so they'll appear on the Category:Computers Editors page.
Communication
Although we have a forum, it is being phased out in favor of the workgroup email list (please subscribe to this list; it is used sparingly but is the only way to reach everyone all at once). The Talk page for this article is also a place where policy issues can be discussed.
Adding or removing articles
To add an existing or new article to the this workgroup, edit the article and add [[Category:Computers Workgroup]] to the bottom of the page. The article should then appear in one of the article clusters shown in the table above, depending on whether or how it is checklisted on its Talk page.
Urgently needed articles
Some authors have made an attempt to catalog the basic articles which we still need to start. You can find a list of the needed core articles at Core articles.
Recruiting people
We are actively seeking more authors and editors for this workgroup. Here is a potential recruitment letter; please consider inviting to your colleagues to join us.
What's happening right now in the Computers Workgroup?
To find out, view this workgroup's Recent Changes.
Starting on a style guide
This probably belongs on its own page but I don't know the standard.
When describing optional, mandatory, or forbidden behavior of a protocol or comparable mechanism, key words to describe this behavior, to be written in ALL CAPs, are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels".[1]
| Keyword | Meaning |
|---|---|
| MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED | Absolute requirements |
| MUST NOT, SHALL NOT | Absolute prohibition |
| SHOULD, RECOMMENDED | there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course |
| SHOULD NOT, NOT RECOMMENDED | there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when theparticular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label |
| MAY, OPTIONAL | Makes the feature truly optional and an implementation choice. Implementations that do not have the feature, howeever, MUST be able to interoperate with those that do not, and vice versa |
References
- ↑ S. Bradner (March 1997), Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels