[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Not specific to this attribute, example only
Greetings! While proofing this morning I read:
Unrelated to this particular attribute there have been discussions about how to extract all the shall/should/may clauses and this is an example of one of those. My question is that in a future revision, should attribute settings be advisory? That is if the setting is "enabled," then why should we permit an application to ignore than setting? I can understand if an application doesn't support it, that would be a reason to not support it but that should be a question of level of conformance. Yes? That is: "enabled: textual filtering is enabled." My application can say: I conform to the level that does not honor dr3d:texture-filter attribute settings. Something for ODF-Next but I would like to tighten up what we say and provide applications with a way to explicitly opt out of support for what we define. Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]