[whatwg] "must only" ambiguity
ian at hixie.ch
Fri May 9 01:06:35 PDT 2008
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Philip Taylor wrote:
> More generally, all uses of "must only" and "may only" etc seem
> dangerous. The spec says "The key words [...] in the normative parts of
> this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119", but
> instead they have to be interpreted as described by the standard English
> grammar rules when they're used in complex phrases like "must only",
> which makes the spec harder to read when you're trying to read the
> normative requirements, and can cause misunderstanding. (Does that make
> things particularly harder for non-native-English-speaking people?)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg