W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2009

Fw: Web IDL spec nitpick: SHOULD and SHOULD NOT?

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:13:19 +1100
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091016031319.GF32003@wok.mcc.id.au>
----- Forwarded message from Jed Hartman <jhartman@google.com> -----

From: Jed Hartman <jhartman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:44:36 -0700
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Subject: Web IDL spec nitpick: SHOULD and SHOULD NOT?

Hi -- I just started reading the working draft of the Web IDL spec at
(http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/); looks interesting and useful so far.
Thanks for putting it together!

I have one tiny nitpicky comment about something that caught my eye in
passing.  The spec says:

> The keywords “must”, “must not”, “required”, “shall”, “shall not”,
> “recommended”, “may” and “optional” in this document are to be
> interpreted as described in Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
> Requirement Levels [RFC2119].

I'm thinking that "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT" should be added to that
list (right after "SHALL" and "SHALL NOT").

But you may well already know about that and be planning to change it,
in which case never mind.

thanks,

--jed



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 03:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC