- From: Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:10:50 -0800
Philipp Serafin wrote: > timeless schrieb: >> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Philipp Serafin <phil127 at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Well, you could still phrase it something along the lines of "The >>> size of a >>> popup document's viewport SHOULD be calculated using the CSS shrink wrap >>> algorithm... etc etc". >>> >> >> as an embedder of a browser for a small device, i do *not* want such a >> requirement >> > Hence why it would be a SHOULD and not a MUST. > > RFC 2119: "This word [...] mean[s] that there may exist valid reasons > in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item [...]" > If the spec author knows the "valid reasons", though, I would argue that it's better for interop to just spell out the situations where the requirement doesn't apply, rather than assume that implementors will ignore a particular requirement.
Received on Saturday, 27 December 2008 18:10:50 UTC