- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 01:35:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >> Operating systems vary in their ability to say what the display density
> >> is. Some do not provide such a call at all; others always return
> >> hard-coded or inaccurate values (72, 75, 96, 100 and 120 are popular
> >> values encountered).
> >>
> >> Therefore, a "should" seems appropriate here.
> >
> > I was not debating whether it was appropriate or not. My request was
> > to have the specification list these points explicitly if there were
> > any, or to have the requirement strengthened if there were not.
>
> Having the requirement strengthened from should to must does sound as if
> you are debating it.
You misunderstand my request.
I am asking for EITHER:
A: make the requirement a MUST
OR:
B: list the reasons the working group is aware of that might be
considered reasonable grounds for not complying to the SHOULD.
I am not asking for both, I am asking for one of these. The second does
not preclude UAs from having other reasons that may also be relevant. It
merely lists reasons to clarify the intent of the spec.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 01:35:42 UTC