W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webevents@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Input for Touch Events spec's Conformance section

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:17:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9C4BCF.7040109@nokia.com>
To: ext Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>
CC: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
On Apr/6/2011 3:06 AM, ext Matt Brubeck wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 08:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> + <p> A conforming implementation is required to implement all fields
>>  defined in this specification. </p>
>
> Some of our field descriptions say, "This attribute may not be available
> on all user agents or platforms."  Should we we change that, since
> conforming implementations are required to implement all fields (and
> since we define default values for implementations to use when the
> actual value is unknown)?

Perhaps it should say something like "Unless stated otherwise, a 
conforming implementation is required to implement all fields define in 
this specification."

> (Also, just curious: Why does this say the implementation "is required
> to implement, instead of "MUST implement"?)

I believe Required and Must are considered equivalent in RFC2119 and the 
main requirement for the spec is consistent usage.

>
> Added by ReSpec:
>> The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT,
> > RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this specification are to be
> > interpreted as described in [[!RFC2119]].
>
> Am I correct to assume we should also mark up MUST/MAY/etc. with <em 
> class="rfc2119"> as needed in the spec?

Well, this is a style issue and personal preferences will of course 
vary. I personally like the way the Contacts API marks up the 2119 
keywords but I realize others may disagree. I think the main requirement 
is consistent use of the keywords and the secondary issue is markup.

-AB
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:18:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:18:08 GMT