"MAY" certainly covers the plans for our implementation, so it works for me. I'd like to know, though, if any UA actually plans not to follow this directive. If not, than I don't really see the point of a "MAY" vs "SHOULD" or "MUST." But, yeah, I'm fine with this in any case. --Joel PS: I'm on vacation until next week, so I'll be quite slow to respond at times. My apologies! On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com> wrote: > Given that there is some disagreement about this, I don't think we gain > anything by asserting that. As I mentioned, I can imagine a UA doing this > to encourage migration. > > On 18 May 2015 at 08:39, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > >> On 18/05/15 16:33, Devdatta Akhawe wrote: >> > I thought the MAY gave flexibility to UAs. Does it not? >> >> It does; but I always think that when a spec says "MAY", it means a bit >> more than "You MAY consider the moon to be made of green cheese"; i.e. >> there are circumstances where the MAY might be a good idea. I'm not sure >> I can think of any circumstances where a UA would decide to block loads >> due to out-of-date integrity hash algorithms, given that the >> no-integrity behaviour is to load regardless. >> >> Gerv >> > >
Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 22:22:54 UTC