In principle I agree. However, ECMA has its own usage guidelines that we will need to make sure we conform with.
>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es-discuss- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Michaux >Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:27 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Kona [[DefaultValue]] > >On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >> Also is it "should" or "must"? RFC documents are usually very strict >> about defining "should" etc and I don't see a definition of "should" >> before page 41 of the pdf where this use occurs. > >http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > >I think explicitly adopting these definitions would be a good step in >improving the clarity of the ECMAScript standard. > >Other recent standards have referenced this rfc explicitly, For example, > >http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/ > >Peter >_______________________________________________ >Es-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
