On Dec 9, 2008, at 10:28 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:12:11 +0100, Erik Dahlström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
IMHO the spec is trying to require something that is not enforcable
anyway, and might as well not mention it, but instead just describe
what happens for all possible indata.
Valid SVG, valid XHTML, or valid HTML are not enforced (per
specification), yet are RFC 2119 MUST requirements in their
respective specifications. (Though in case of scripting MUST
requires solving a certain unsolvable problem, so maybe MUST is not
that appropriate...)
Would it make everyone happy to a) keep the MUST, b) indicate which
conformance class it belongs to, and c) describe what the
implementation does when handling bad input? I agree that only (c) is
really vital, but (a) could be enforced by authoring/validation/
quality control/etc. tools, and (b) makes it clear to API implementers
that they can skip that sentence and go eat pizza instead.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
