- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:59:54 -0800
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@w3.org>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Rebecca Hauck <rhauck@adobe.com>, "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, public-test-infra@w3.org
On 09/24/2013 03:03 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > Peter, Rebecca, fantasai, others, any thoughts on how to best handle SHOULD/MAY requirements in specs? For ref, the thread starts here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/2013JulSep/0240.html One of the reasons why we test should/may requirements is to encourage implementations to do the right thing. In a lot of cases the leeway is due to complexity or performance or lack of existing implementations. So the spec can't require a particular behavior, but the test suite, by including tests for the correct behavior, can encourage implementations to move in that direction. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 07:00:32 UTC