W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:45:57 -0700
Cc: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B70D0BF6-1A5B-44C3-96D5-1EEE35E49C67@gbiv.com>
To: Benjamin Carlyle <benjamincarlyle@soundadvice.id.au>
On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
> In the vein of clarifying what is meant by "process" I would also suggest dropping the "be able to" wording wherever it appears in MUST statements. Compliance can tested for what a particular actor does or does not do. It can't be tested for what the actor is capable of doing.
> 
I looked and found that "be able to" is the correct wording.  It is
possible to test for capabilities -- it is just harder to know
whether the failure is due to a lack of capability or an explicit
decision not to.  In these cases, we want to allow the implementation
to decide not to parse at all.

....Roy


Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 04:46:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC