Peter Michaux petermichaux at gmail.com
Sun Nov 16 19:21:42 PST 2008

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
<david.hopwood at industrial-designers.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Michaux wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>> I think explicitly adopting these definitions would be a good step in
>> improving the clarity of the ECMAScript standard.
> I advise caution here: many, perhaps most of the existing uses of "must"
> or "must not" in ECMA-262 or the Kona draft are not consistent with the
> RFC2119 definitions.

Regardless of the source of key word definitions like "must" and
"should", do you agree that precises definitions and consistent usage
would be beneficial to the clarity of the document and a worthwhile
improvement? It may require some rewording but at least these words
are easy to find.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list