petermichaux at gmail.com
Sun Nov 16 13:34:46 PST 2008
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com> wrote:
> In principle I agree. However, ECMA has its own usage guidelines that we will need to make sure we conform with.
It isn't so important who is defining these terms but the source of
the definitions should be present, and the document should conform.
>>From: es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
>>bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Peter Michaux
>>Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:27 PM
>>To: es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>Subject: Re: Kona [[DefaultValue]]
>>On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com>
>>> 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.
>>I think explicitly adopting these definitions would be a good step in
>>improving the clarity of the ECMAScript standard.
>>Other recent standards have referenced this rfc explicitly, For example,
>>Es-discuss mailing list
>>Es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the Es-discuss