- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:51:26 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Mar 03, 2006, at 02:13, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> So you're suggesting that we make the argument required, but say
> that implementations MAY make it optional?
>
> I would be probably be ok with that, but I don't quite see the
> point with it since any feature we don't specifically forbid can be
> added by any implementation.
Yes but some things that aren't forbidden are more encouraged to be
added than others :)
I agree though that saying it MUST be there but you MAY make it
optional doesn't make much sense, I like Maciej's suggestion of a
SHOULD. It correctly conveys the idea that that's the correct
behaviour, but if you have a good reason to go against it (say, the
code was written before the WG that wrote the spec even existed) then
you're fine (at least for the time being).
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:51:40 UTC