Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050418185247.03dbe720@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:55:16 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Supress & Require Script
In-Reply-To: <4263DA5E.17D0@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050418153647.0401c640@mail.jefsey.com>
	<4263DA5E.17D0@xyzzy.claranet.de>
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

Dear Franck,
sorry I mean the whole issue of using an RFC 2119 wording, whatever it is.

At 18:03 18/04/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> > I do not understand this SHOULD and MUST issue.
>
>It's explained in RfC 2119:  "they MUST only be used where it
>is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior
>which has potential for causing harm".

Dear Frank,
I mean, I see no "requirement". I just see that there are legacy cases 
(developped before the proposed new format) which can fail (that depends on 
the library being used). So the only thing to do is to warn the people this 
may happen if they add the script when it is not needed.

As far as I understand, the problem should fade away, when new libraries 
are developped. So, the "implicit_script" is only usueful in case there is 
a problem. This is for the writter of a page. Not for the library 
developper, for who supporting scripts is a MUST from now on?

Being presented that way (I understand correct), i.e. just useful decreases 
a lot the pressure on the registry to be accurate. We only say that when 
someone meets a problem he should report it so we can update the list?

>If en-US won't match en-Latn-US that's harmful.
>
> > 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?
>
>It's a case calling for a SHOULD NOT or a MUST NOT.  The
>discussion was about using "MUST NOT ... unless specific
>reasons" instead of a simple "SHOULD NOT ...".  I'm the
>KISS-fan here, I prefer the simple "SHOULD NOT ...".

I understand the discussion,
- what I question is if it discusses adequately the problem you rose and 
support the solution you propose.
- also, as a developper I know what MUST/MUST NOT mean in a C program. I 
have more problems with SHOULD/SHOULD NOT. But this is to be discussed with 
some proposed code as there may be tricks I did not think of.
jfc





>_______________________________________________
>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