Re: EOT-Lite File Format

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 18:22 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:

> > That suggests a SHOULD requirement.  UAs SHOULD ignore
> > non-nil root-strings but are not obligated to do so.
> > Authors can't count on them being ignored on the one
> > hand but UA makers are encouraged to ignore them
> > entirely.
> Nope, it has to be a MUST requirement - UAs MUST ignore non-nil
> rootstrings.  IE <= 8 browsers will just be nonconforming (which is
> fine, since they were produced before this standard was produced), and
> authors can take advantage of that to hack something resembling
> same-origin into it if they wish.

You are a braver man than I, in this matter.
Only... I'm not at all sure you're wrong.
Still, I'll offer my case:

I suggest "SHOULD" because that would allow
"IE<=8" to be retroactively conforming.  Of course,
if they are not retroactively conforming, then
what's the point?  Take EOT-lite off the table,
in that case.


Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:29:14 UTC