- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:30:02 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Martin Atkins wrote: > 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. In this particular case, I think it's best just to leave it up to the browsers. Maybe it's something we should mention in the rendering section eventually, though. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 22:30:02 UTC