- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:44:10 -0500
- To: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer)
- Cc: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
Possible alternative wording: "If a non-null result-set object is passed in, the implementation may update its contents and return that object rather than generating and returning a new instance." "May" is our traditional flag that it's entirely up to the implementation (as opposed to "should" or "must"), and this phrasing avoids any question of whether this decision is good or bad, consistant or inconsistant, or who/what makes the decision. If we feel it'd be helpful to explain why someone might think this behavior was good or bad, that could go in a second sentence... but this is starting to get into our traditional descriptive-versus-discursive grey area; it's not clear that whether design philosophy belongs in the spec or in the FAQ. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 22:26:04 UTC