At the moment, the RS document says, in $15.1:
Reading Systems must behave as if a unique origin [URL] were allocated to each EPUB Publication. Adopting this approach will isolate publications from each other, thereby limiting access to cookies, DOM storage, etc.
This statement is in a non-normative section and "must" is used as opposed to "MUST". As this is the only place this restriction is mentioned, the conclusion is that the requirement is not normative for Reading Systems.
The (normative) EPUB Content section §3.4 says:
Reading Systems are required to behave as though a unique origin [URL] has been assigned to each EPUB Publication.
It says "required" and not "REQUIRED" but that is fine, even if the intention is that this feature would be non-normative; after all, the requirement should indeed be in the RS spec and not in the content. However, the reader of the Core spec may believe that this is the only reason that the term is as is, but that the Reading System is indeed REQUIRED, ie, that it is a normative requirement. As most of the authors will not read the RS document, this may lead to false expectations.
Two fundamental question: is the requirement, whereby RS-s must ensure a unique origin for all scripts in content documents:
- normative
- in this case the statements should be added into a normative section of the RS document (because we forgot to do that)
- informative
- in this case the statement in the Content document should be changed to something that conveys the information that it is by means sure that this restriction is applied. For example:
Reading systems may behave as though a unique origin"
At the moment, the RS document says, in $15.1:
This statement is in a non-normative section and "must" is used as opposed to "MUST". As this is the only place this restriction is mentioned, the conclusion is that the requirement is not normative for Reading Systems.
The (normative) EPUB Content section §3.4 says:
It says "required" and not "REQUIRED" but that is fine, even if the intention is that this feature would be non-normative; after all, the requirement should indeed be in the RS spec and not in the content. However, the reader of the Core spec may believe that this is the only reason that the term is as is, but that the Reading System is indeed REQUIRED, ie, that it is a normative requirement. As most of the authors will not read the RS document, this may lead to false expectations.
Two fundamental question: is the requirement, whereby RS-s must ensure a unique origin for all scripts in content documents: