From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 14:29:32 EDT
On 23/07/2003 10:47, Jon Hanna wrote:
>should "should" be taken as
>>giving an obligation or only a recommendation?
>I like the way that RFCs have a well defined meaning for "should" or
>"recommended" in certain contexts as defined by RFC 2119.
>I such contexts these words are taken to mean that, while there might be a
>valid reason not to do something, the implications must be understood and
>I know that doesn't apply to any other specs. But it *should* :)
Well, Unicode 3.2
was actually stronger, using "are to":
Default_Ignorable_Code_Point: For programmatic determination of
default-ignorable code points. These code points are to be ignored by
processes that do not explicitly support them. This permits programs to
be compatible with future assignments of such characters. Ordinarily
they are invisible, have no glyph, and have no advance width.
I wonder if a deliberate decision was made to tone down this language in
Unicode 4.0, or was the text got at by a stylistic editor? But CGJ is
newly defined as "default ignorable" in 4.0.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 15:11:17 EDT