“SHOULD” has a meaning of formal recommendation but gives the UA developers the rights to decide if and how to implement this. The meaning is the same, but expressed using the common spec language according to RFC 2119. I’d rather stick with the common spec language. Thank you, Vlad From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:29 PM To: Levantovsky, Vladimir Cc: Christopher Slye; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org Subject: Re: WOFF and extended metadata On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>> wrote: Strictly speaking, the proposed sentence defines recommended behavior, where some kind of UI is to be provided by UA to show the content of metadata. It does not however prescribe any particular way to implement that UI, nor does it define any specific user interface features. This is all left to the implementers to decide. OK, but it's still a UI requirement. Without this sentence, the spec would be incomplete because it provides the description of syntax and semantics of metadata but fails to mention what it is expected to be used for, and whether UA is expected to act on it. The proposed sentence resolves this issue by providing clear recommendations that UA should only display the content based on user's request. The spec could just say, informatively, something like Note: user agents are encouraged to provide means for users to view the metadata, if it is present. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 19:39:07 UTC