Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC2119 changes #393

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 17, 2024
Merged

RFC2119 changes #393

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 17, 2024

Conversation

darobin
Copy link
Member

@darobin darobin commented Jan 11, 2024

Fixes #371


Preview | Diff

index.html Outdated
@@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@
should restrict the [=data=] they transfer to what's either necessary to achieve their users'
goals or aligns with their users' wishes and interests.</span></div>

<div class="practice" data-audiences="api-designers"><span class="practicelab">Web APIs should be designed to minimize the amount of data that sites need
<div class="practice" data-audiences="api-designers"><span class="practicelab">Web APIs must be designed to minimize the amount of data that sites need
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one has tradeoffs: letting callers minimize the data increases the size of the API ... so I think it should remain "should".

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated
This document does not adhere to strict [[?RFC2129]] terminology because it is primarily of
an informative nature and does not easily lend itself to constraining a conformance class.
However, within the formulation of its principles, we have taken care to use "should" to indicate
that a principle can be ignored in some rare cases given that there are valid reasons for doing so and
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we mean "can be ignored", but rather that a principle could be overridden in particular cases where there are valid reasons for doing so

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@torgo torgo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@jyasskin jyasskin merged commit c2bd5ce into main Jan 17, 2024
1 check passed
@jyasskin jyasskin deleted the must-we-should-we branch January 17, 2024 17:33
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2024
SHA: c2bd5ce
Reason: push, by jyasskin

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Be consistent/intentional on "must" vs "should" and RFC 2119 language
4 participants