On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In principle I agree. However, ECMA has its own usage guidelines that we > will need to make sure we conform with.
It isn't so important who is defining these terms but the source of the definitions should be present, and the document should conform. Peter >>-----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
