W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Testing SHOULD

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 13:22:14 +1000
Message-ID: <481BDA66.6090906@css-class.com>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>


>> I would say RECOMMENDED since 'should' or similar 'could' are quite weak 
>> words considering there 'should' be good reason not to do it (the 
>> behavior). For MAY I 'would' like OPTIONAL instead.
> 
> These terms aren't up for debate.  They've been standardized by RFC
> 2119 for over ten years: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt.  Nor
> is a spec-wide editorial rewrite (to prefer some RFC 2119 terms over
> others) of CSS 2.1 appropriate at its current maturity level (nor is
> this the appropriate list to raise such an issue).
> 
> Using "SHOULD" and "MAY" is often much more concise than "OPTIONAL"
> and "RECOMMENDED", and experienced spec readers ought to know what
> they mean (or notice the text at the beginning pointing to RFC
> 2119).
> 
> -David


Well pardon my ignorance about a standardization of terms dating from 
1997. I am only commenting from what I believe to be best personally. I 
am also commenting from the perspective of what these terms mean in 
Australian English. SHOULD is a weak word and RECOMMENDED is a strong 
word when spoken by the average Australian.

All I did was provided my comments from my perspective, life experience 
and knowledge. Do Americans set the standards for the rest of the world 
which every other person must adhere to on this planet?


Alan
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 03:23:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:56 GMT