- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:17:35 -0400
- To: ext Matt Brubeck <mbrubeck@mozilla.com>
- CC: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
On Apr/6/2011 3:06 AM, ext Matt Brubeck wrote: > On 04/05/2011 08:24 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> + <p> A conforming implementation is required to implement all fields >> defined in this specification. </p> > > Some of our field descriptions say, "This attribute may not be available > on all user agents or platforms." Should we we change that, since > conforming implementations are required to implement all fields (and > since we define default values for implementations to use when the > actual value is unknown)? Perhaps it should say something like "Unless stated otherwise, a conforming implementation is required to implement all fields define in this specification." > (Also, just curious: Why does this say the implementation "is required > to implement, instead of "MUST implement"?) I believe Required and Must are considered equivalent in RFC2119 and the main requirement for the spec is consistent usage. > > Added by ReSpec: >> The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, > > RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this specification are to be > > interpreted as described in [[!RFC2119]]. > > Am I correct to assume we should also mark up MUST/MAY/etc. with <em > class="rfc2119"> as needed in the spec? Well, this is a style issue and personal preferences will of course vary. I personally like the way the Contacts API marks up the 2119 keywords but I realize others may disagree. I think the main requirement is consistent use of the keywords and the secondary issue is markup. -AB
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:18:07 UTC