[tap-l] Uses of 1..0 without a directive

[Andy Armstrong]

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  
> TAP
> reader the choice of supporting it, but not forcing them or even  
> particularly
> encouraging it, but they can if they need to do it for backwards  
> compat
> 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