On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were no
objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
specification to encourage broader review and comments.
Sorry, I'm in the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:01:17 +0200, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
wrote:
Although there are ongoing discussions regarding exceptions, there were
no
objections to this CfC. As such, I will request publication of a LC
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:32:42 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, if something is important enough for interop that we want
to test it, we don't want to make it a should requirement. It
should be a must. What examples do you have of should
requirements that you
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
Privacy and security restrictions leap to mind. There are things that really
are should requirements because there are valid use cases for not applying
them, and no reason to break those cases by making the
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:34:59 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
Privacy and security restrictions leap to mind. There are things that
really are should requirements because there are valid use
* Aryeh Gregor wrote:
The difference is that if you have must requirements that are
specific to a single conformance class, you can write a test suite and
expect every implementation in that class to pass it. For should
requirements, you're saying it's okay to violate it, so test suites
don't
