- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:23:56 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Etan Wexler wrote: > > "Notably for HTML, user agents may render borders for certain elements > (e.g., buttons, menus, etc.) differently than for "ordinary" elements." > > Is this a grant of permission or a record of impermissible behavior? The > word "may" is ambiguous. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/conform.html#q1 : | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 (see [RFC2119]). | However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase | letters in this specification. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt : | |5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is | truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a | particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that | it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. | An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be | prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does | include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the | same vein an implementation which does include a particular option | MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which | does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the | option provides.)
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:23:42 UTC