- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:53:35 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Hello www-svg, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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 Which we cannot do, as already explained. Some devices, notable smaller handheld devices with limited OS and also lcd projectors lacking laser rangefinders, are unable to return the appropriate values needed to perform the computation of display density. > 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. Thanks for the clarification. Jim Ley has already pointed out that a list beside a should might be seen as exhaustive, so we prefer to have something that is clearly an example. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 12:53:38 UTC