On 12 May 2005, at 1:51 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
The WG has tended to punt assuming on a Fabled Implementors Guide. Why is that punt not acceptable now?
I know putting things in the IG has been mentioned before, but I can't think of any actual cases where that was the outcome of the debate - things have either been put in the spec, or rejected outright. This needs to go in the spec. It's just as much of an techical/interop issue as "Logos must have a 2:1 aspect ratio".
Bray voiced concerns about SHOULD; I suggested MAY. No further
discussion occurred. What might be wrong with a MAY requirement in this
case?
MAY is fine as the actual RFC term, but needs to be embellished, eg:
"atom:summary MAY be included, but software is encouraged to do so when atom:content is not present"
As I've said before, I don't know what the exact wording needs to be. Is there an RFC-compatible way to get the intention of this sentence across? This question is put mainly to the chairs and the AD, btw.
Graham
