W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: [Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:36:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jcDTGsncD9nkjj-hyuo3xJ+CfRq2R8sc5wm_y0azkdaDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
On Feb 26, 2014 1:01 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> * bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
> >The section "Worker Script Caching" uses the term "MAY NOT", which is not
> >defined in RFC 2119.  I'm assuming this is intended to be "MUST NOT" or
maybe
> >"SHOULD NOT".
>
> If an agent "MAY $x" then it also "MAY not $x". It is possible that the
> author meant "must not" or "should not" in this specific instance, but
> in general such a reading would be incorrect. If course, specifications
> should not use constructs like "may not".
> --

Your use of "should not" and the logic implies that actually they may use
"may not" they just shouldn't.  Do you mean they may not?

> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 18:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:22 UTC