[tap-l] Uses of 1..0 without a directive
andy at hexten.net
Mon Mar 9 10:21:06 GMT 2009
On 9 Mar 2009, at 04:03, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I'm leaning towards "TAP reader may" and "TAP writer must not" which
> effectively tells any TAP writers to change it ASAP while allowing a
> reader the choice of supporting it, but not forcing them or even
> encouraging it, but they can if they need to do it for backwards
> without breaking or extending the protocol. I also think it should
> be made
> clear it will be removed in a future version.
That sounds right to me. It might be useful to have a stand-alone
strict parser that could be used to validate TAP producers.
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
More information about the tap-l