[wp-hackers] Forum Help

Carthik Sharma carthik at gmail.com
Sun May 15 12:48:57 GMT 2005


On 5/15/05, Matthew Thomas <mpt at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Mike Little wrote:
> >...
> > without wanting to get into a full blown discussion going over old old
> > ground on this subject, you need to understand that the wording of
> > IETF RFCs is very specific about 'must' and 'should', etc. Regardless
> > of how anyone else might interpret these words in any other context.
> > RFC 2119 has the full details: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
> Sure, but come on -- do you really think the reason WordPress doesn't
> follow this part of the RFC is because, when implementing those pages,
> Matt read RFC 2616 and said "oh, it only says SHOULD, we're all right
> then"? :-) Many authors (including me) just didn't read it.
No more than a normal person wraps his paragraphs in a <p> </p>. If
standards don't make practical sense, they will be replaced with
standards that do. As for the RFC and what Mike said about "Should",
it validates Matt's (or anyone else's) common-sense choice as being
sound. So would you now still say that WP violates these rules, with
Mike's clarification on the subject? If WP does not violate the rules,
then GWA is acting irresponsibly. Clearly, a browser, crawler, or any
sort of third-party web application should find it in itself to be
"robust" and tolerant of non-standard-compliance on the part of the
distributed clients.


More information about the wp-hackers mailing list