Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ProfSarkov 2437 days ago
It's also in the spec.

People might not like the spec or it might be incomplete, but adhering to it is a very important part of improving it until it's a good one.

Now I'm no webdev, but I could very well imagine that the spec is already a good one. So the situation might be even worse.
2 comments
ko27 2437 days ago
No, it's not a requirement in the spec. Chrome is actually spec compliant regarding this issue.
link
nikanj 2437 days ago
The spec only says "should", not "must". Apparently these wingnuts thought that means the spec can be ignored.
link
reificator 2437 days ago
> The spec only says "should", not "must". Apparently these wingnuts thought that means the spec can be ignored.

Not arguing in favor of this particular choice, but yes. That is exactly what "should" means in most cases.

For instance, in RFC 2119: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

> 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.

link
azernik 2436 days ago
Blanket disregard of a SHOULD directive as a UX decision neither falls under "in particular circumstances" nor indicates that they've "understood and carefully weighed" the consequences.
link
ko27 2437 days ago
There are no semantics to discuss. Chrome is spec compliant. That's a fact. Words like "should" and "must" have well defined meaning that is clarified in every spec document, which I would highly advise you to read before writing any further comments and insults.
link
Natanael_L 2436 days ago
SHOULD does not equal MAY
link