[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by davidfor

@Rev. Bob: I have read what I need to of you reply and have the following comments:

I read that far and suspected that line was all I needed to read of your response.

I was right. You keep interpreting “should” much more loosely than the RFC 2119 definition allows. In doing so, despite your protests to the contrary, your interpretation is closer to that document’s “may” than its “should.”

Originally Posted by davidfor

I am interpreting "should" as "should". And that means "It would be a damn good idea if you did this, but, you don't absolutely have to do it".

Simply untrue. Again, the RFC language for “should” says “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.”

That’s much more stringent than “it’s a damn good idea to implement X.” It is a dire warning to the developer to think really damned hard and consider all of the ramifications before omitting the feature, because getting rid of it is a really serious matter.

Figure it this way. In the legal system, one MUST not commit rape. There’s no circumstance where it’s permissible. By contrast, one SHOULD not kill. There are a couple of situations where that’s allowed, but you’d better think hard before pulling that trigger, because the consequences could be dire. (For “may,” the best I can come up with right now is speeding. If you’re going five miles over the limit, maybe ten, most cops won’t care. In that sense, strict adherence to the posted limit is pretty much “optional.”)

Originally Posted by DNSB

If you are going to quote specifications, perhaps you should have included this quote (bolding mine):

And from the item you posted (bolding again mine);

First cite: You’re really reaching on that “any particular set of built-in system fonts” front. That translates to “don’t count on Helvetica, Arial, Times New Roman, or any other specific font face being present.” If anything, that underscores the importance of the three generics. It certainly does not diminish them, and in no way does it mean anything remotely like “don’t count on the generic families being recognized.”

Second cite: Read the sentence immediately following the parenthetical element you bolded.

Originally Posted by DNSB

Reading that section, it would appear that if I have one font available and map all fonts to that one font, I am within the intent of that section.

Nope. “User agents should provide reasonable default choices for the generic font families, which express the characteristics of each family as well as possible within the limits allowed by the underlying technology.”

And remember, “should” has a very explicit meaning in this context.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

By this logic the Kobo eink screens not rendering full color is a bug.

Utter nonsense.

The more correct example would be the Kobo app forcing images to grayscale despite running on a device with a color screen. There’s no technical justification for the behavior, and it improperly violates the author’s intent.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Also you can rant on all you like, but your own words prove you wrong, last I checked recommended did not mean required, it did not imply you had to do anything. All it means is the feature is suggested to be included.

The governing definition, spelled out in the RFC, says otherwise.

You’re applying a vernacular definition to what, in this context, is a technical term. You might as well say that C++ programmers can end lines of code with emdashes instead of semicolons, on the grounds that the rules of English grammar permit emdashes to be used that way.

Different context, different rules.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

And thus far you've shown no evidence that it must be done, while others have shown evidence that it's at most suggested.

You are thus calling the lack of an optional feature a bug when its omission was a choice. While also trying to shoehorn in that content creators shouldn't have to make a choice to embed a font to ensure their content is displayed how they want it to be.

Go read the RFC. Compare item three (“should”) with item five (“may”). Guess where you’ll find “optional” defined?

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.)

”Should” explicitly does not mean “optional.” The definitions are quite clear.