- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:32:34 +0200
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2014-01-31 16:58, Steve Faulkner wrote: > 'SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"' > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > > > mean the same Oops, sorry, forgot that. In light of this, it puzzles me why you would use the phrase “not recommended” in informative text. But maybe I misunderstood and you used it just to describe what the text would explain, not meaning that those words would be used. In a specification (as opposite to a tutorial, textbook, or handbook), the most important explanations are those that guide the interpretation of the requirements. In this sense, if any informative explanation is given, it should really discuss cases where layout tables are or may be acceptable and deal with the issues that may arise with such cases (rather than present arguments against cases where layout tables have been used in an obviously problematic way). That is, it should focus on “good” layout tables. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 15:32:57 UTC