- 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>
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 UTC