>
> It is a violation to not follow a SHOULD unless it is documented and
> rationalized. Just because it is not an *absolute* requirement does not mean
> that doing it otherwise for no good reason is not wrong.
>
> From RFC 2190:
> "3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
>
> As opposed to:
> "5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
> it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
> An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
> include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
> same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
> MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
> does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
> option provides.)"
>
> Note that there is no requirement for an implementation that follows a SHOULD
> to support interoperate with an implementation that chooses not to follow a
> SHOULD.
The very citations you use to support your argument invalidate your argument.
It is not a violation it is, however, rude and bad netiquette.
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
