- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 06:49:20 -0600
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua2eY52LkM7hQKCMFuC8uKAVSeuH64Cy1PUZ22v5Soq7Ag@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Mike Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net> wrote: > 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 Just striking that would be OK by me as well. -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 12:49:48 UTC