W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Test suites and RFC2119

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:59:01 +0200
To: "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>, "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vye5sn1gwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:32:42 +0200, Aryeh Gregor  
<Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

> Generally, if something is important enough for interop that we want
> to test it, we don't want to make it a "should" requirement.  It
> should be a "must".  What examples do you have of "should"
> requirements that you want to test?

Privacy and security restrictions leap to mind. There are things that  
really are "should" requirements because there are valid use cases for not  
applying them, and no reason to break those cases by making the  
requirement a "must". In the normal case where they are applied you want  
to be able to test.

But the difference between "should" and "must" is already two sets of  
conformance profiles (or whatever you want to call it), where one applies  
always and the other applies unless there's a reason not to do the thing  
that is assumed to be normal.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 19:59:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT