- From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:32:29 -0400
- To: stephengreenubl@gmail.com
- Cc: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, public-microxml@w3.org
On 09/11/2012 08:19 AM, Stephen D Green wrote: > > later: > "A MicroXML parser is still conforming if it fails to meet the > requirements of the first paragraph of this section only because of > limitations of computing resources." > Not sure about the use of MUST in the first paragraph. It seems to be > pointless making it a MUST if that is then weakened later to say there > is some vague category of parser which breaks the conformance > requirement but is allowed to do so because it somehow can't keep it. > That just sounds like a SHOULD. > Personally, I would strike the second paragraph (caveat about OOME, etc) - I think this falls under the "acts of god" clause and goes without saying -Mike
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 12:33:28 UTC