- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:00:10 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On 8/4/12 1:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Since the audience for that requirement is spec authors themselves, I > think the presence of a bare MUST NOT is sufficient. If a spec author > violates it, someone can point it out to them, and they can change the > spec. Indeed. In Gecko's WebIDL bindings, we're simply treating every MUST or MUST NOT violation as a fatal error in the IDL and refusing to compile it, period. I would personally be fine with making that a general WebIDL implementation requirement: that an implementation of an interface that violates the WebIDL specification simply not be possible; if one exists, it's an implementation bug (in addition to a bug in the relevant interface). -Boris
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 20:00:44 UTC