- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:46:08 +0200
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- CC: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, FX <public-fx@w3.org>, "ms2ger@gmail.com" <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Hello Domenic, Monday, July 21, 2014, 9:05:49 PM, you wrote: > From: Dirk Schulze [mailto:dschulze@adobe.com] >> We can not use "MUST NOT" because then no interface can use it at all - not even getClientsRect() :). "SHOULD NOT" is the right technical term though. Are you fine with that? > I'm feeling bad for continuing the back-and-forth on such a trivial > point, but what about "APIs besides getClientRects() MUST NOT"? Suggest adding a reason so other APIs don't try to add to the set: With the sole exception of getClientRects() (for legacy compatibility), API's MUST NOT ... But the above wording from Domenic is fine too if people prefer it. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:46:16 UTC