- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:58:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23490 --- Comment #6 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Jukka K. Korpela from comment #5) > (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #4) > > > why is it a non problem? > > Because a section element without a heading is not a problem. It is often > quite adequate, as I described. you didm't actually describe it. > > > And why is it wrong to make a soft requirement for > > the author to provide a heading? > > To people accustomed to reading RFCs, as many readers of the spec are, I would suggest the opposite > “should” is a serious word – and the spec defines “should” to mean what RFC > 2119 says. and that is why it was used. 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt is reasonable as the provision of a heading is recommended in most circumstances. The lack of clarity around the use of section has already resulted in widespread misuse which has had a negative effect on users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 19:58:43 UTC