Peter Michaux wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Peter Michaux wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I advise caution here: many, perhaps most of the existing uses of "must" >> or "must not" in ECMA-262 or the Kona draft are not consistent with the >> RFC2119 definitions. > > Regardless of the source of key word definitions like "must" and > "should", do you agree that precises definitions and consistent usage > would be beneficial to the clarity of the document and a worthwhile > improvement?
Absolutely. As Allen Wirfs-Brock says, we need to find out what the ECMA constraints/conventions are first. -- David-Sarah Hopwood _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
