Re: [Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119
* Brian Kardell wrote: >On Feb 26, 2014 1:01 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: >> If an agent "MAY $x" then it also "MAY not $x". It is possible that the >> author meant "must not" or "should not" in this specific instance, but >> in general such a reading would be incorrect. If course, specifications >> should not use constructs like "may not". >Your use of "should not" and the logic implies that actually they may use >"may not" they just shouldn't. Do you mean they may not? I think that using phrases like "may not" is a bad practise. I think any "may" in this context is mutually exclusive with "should not". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Re: [Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119
On Feb 26, 2014 1:01 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" wrote: > > * bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote: > >The section "Worker Script Caching" uses the term "MAY NOT", which is not > >defined in RFC 2119. I'm assuming this is intended to be "MUST NOT" or maybe > >"SHOULD NOT". > > If an agent "MAY $x" then it also "MAY not $x". It is possible that the > author meant "must not" or "should not" in this specific instance, but > in general such a reading would be incorrect. If course, specifications > should not use constructs like "may not". > -- Your use of "should not" and the logic implies that actually they may use "may not" they just shouldn't. Do you mean they may not? > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ >
Re: [Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119
* bugzi...@jessica.w3.org wrote: >The section "Worker Script Caching" uses the term "MAY NOT", which is not >defined in RFC 2119. I'm assuming this is intended to be "MUST NOT" or maybe >"SHOULD NOT". If an agent "MAY $x" then it also "MAY not $x". It is possible that the author meant "must not" or "should not" in this specific instance, but in general such a reading would be incorrect. If course, specifications should not use constructs like "may not". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
[Bug 24823] New: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24823 Bug ID: 24823 Summary: [ServiceWorker]: "MAY NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119 Product: WebAppsWG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Service Workers Assignee: slightly...@chromium.org Reporter: mme...@google.com QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzi...@w3.org CC: public-webapps@w3.org The section "Worker Script Caching" uses the term "MAY NOT", which is not defined in RFC 2119. I'm assuming this is intended to be "MUST NOT" or maybe "SHOULD NOT". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
