Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050418153647.0401c640@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:07:54 +0200
To: "ltru Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

I do not understand this SHOULD and MUST issue. If I am correct, what we 
mean is:

1. in every case the script, language (region, referent, style) information 
MUST to be given (depending on the role of the tag). Full stop.
2. in some legacy cases, the script is implied and mentionning it may make 
the application break. We have listed the possible implied scripts from 
experience for your convenience.

This is a warning about an old practice. Not a moral case calling for an 
11th commandment?
jfc


On 06:11 18/04/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
>Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > There *is* a difference between the construct "MUST NOT x
> > unless Y" and the construct "SHOULD NOT x".  Any "good
> > reason" Z could be claimed by an implementor as justification
> > for violating the latter.
>
>True, but in the case of Mark's proposal Y degenerated into a
>| unless there is a specific reason
>
>That's even less than my hallucinated "specific and good" Z -
>the actual wording in RfC 2199 is "valid reasons in particular
>circumstances".  If the "specific reasons" are not specified
>a plain "SHOULD NOT x" is clearer than the "MUST NOT x unless
>specific reasons".
>
>Debbie had "specific reasons" to add scripts whereever she can.
>But she had no valid reasons to violate a SHOULD NOT (talking
>about my parallel universe of course, probably not Debbie's).
>
> > More important than technical difference between the two in
> > this case would be the perception of the strength of the
> > warning.
>
>"SHOULD NOT x" is cut-your-throat-and-then-do-x.  The best
>excuse is old software implemented before the SHOULD NOT was
>introduced.  Or obvious cases like Web cams operating as HTTP
>server which simply have no timestamp for a valid Date: header.
>Or using a domain literal if there's no FQDN.
>
>"MUST NOT x unless specific reasons" is fuzzy, for me it sounds
>like "do what you like, but it's nice that we talked about x".
>
>It would be very different if the reasons are really specified.
>
> > are we at least agreed that this is a case where we want
> > the document to give a clear rationale for the recommended
> > behaviour?
>
>The MUST vs. SHOULD issue is the only point where I disagree,
>anything else in your two articles is fine for me.  Bye, Frank
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru