David-Sarah Hopwood david.hopwood at industrial-designers.co.uk
Sun Nov 16 19:35:22 PST 2008

Peter Michaux wrote:
> 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?

Absolutely. As Allen Wirfs-Brock says, we need to find out what the
ECMA constraints/conventions are first.

David-Sarah Hopwood

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list