- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:36:57 +0100
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:58:53 +0100, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote: > I guess that they're ok that anyone savvy enough to set a hidden pref (for > Mozilla; I *don't know* how to disable it in IE), is also someone that > understands the consequences. Which is why it makes sense to me for it to be a SHOULD. it's what should's for after all, you can further constrain it within the spec with the default behaviour MUST be, users need to be made aware etc. > I do understand your frustration about including this in the spec as a MUST, > but then having no (strictly) compliant implementations. Whether the ability > to disable something is strictly equivalent to non-support of an attribute, If a WF2 client MUST not do something, then if it does do it, it won't be a conformant WF2 client anymore... Makes sense to me. Jim.
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 02:36:57 UTC