W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2015

[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:15:18 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28011-523-NKiFRGtBJ1@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28011

--- Comment #3 from Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> ---
Michael,

When you say:

****
A significant problem in switching to the RFC 2119 definition of "must" in F+O
is that we often use the word in sentences like "The primary format token is
always present and must not be zero-length." Here the requirement is not on the
implementor of the spec, but on the user.
****

Although phrased as a requirement on a user, isn't the requirement on an
implementation to not accept input that failed to conform to the requirement?

In this case, an implementation must fail/reject input where the primary format
token is absent or is of zero-length. 

Yes?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2015 14:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 15 February 2015 14:15:24 UTC