- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:39:17 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.04.2010 00:09, Ian Hickson wrote: > I don't think that saying that if an implementation doesn't know if it > created a feed before, it should not be allowed to create a feed, is a > good trade-off. I think it would be ignored. Basically making this a MUST > would lead to implementations having to violate the spec to do anything > useful. When we require that implementations violate the spec, we lead to > them ignoring the spec even when it's not necessary. > > Hence the SHOULD. It's almost like a MUST, but it acknowledges that it may > not be possible to implement the requirement in some cases. > > It should be noted that since this is still a MUST in the Atom spec, the > implementation is still non-conforming. So I really don't see the problem. The problem is that by phrasing it this way you actually *encourage* non-conforming implementations. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 08:39:57 UTC