[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must


--- Comment #3 from Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> ---

When you say:

A significant problem in switching to the RFC 2119 definition of "must" in F+O
is that we often use the word in sentences like "The primary format token is
always present and must not be zero-length." Here the requirement is not on the
implementor of the spec, but on the user.

Although phrased as a requirement on a user, isn't the requirement on an
implementation to not accept input that failed to conform to the requirement?

In this case, an implementation must fail/reject input where the primary format
token is absent or is of zero-length. 


You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 15 February 2015 14:15:24 UTC