W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:39:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4BC6D0B5.7070004@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.04.2010 00:09, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I don't think that saying that if an implementation doesn't know if it
> created a feed before, it should not be allowed to create a feed, is a
> good trade-off. I think it would be ignored. Basically making this a MUST
> would lead to implementations having to violate the spec to do anything
> useful. When we require that implementations violate the spec, we lead to
> them ignoring the spec even when it's not necessary.
> Hence the SHOULD. It's almost like a MUST, but it acknowledges that it may
> not be possible to implement the requirement in some cases.
> It should be noted that since this is still a MUST in the Atom spec, the
> implementation is still non-conforming. So I really don't see the problem.

The problem is that by phrasing it this way you actually *encourage* 
non-conforming implementations.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 08:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC