soc-pe-bot
commented
9 months ago Team's Response
When we say the current behaviour is that we "do not allow special characters such as @", we do not mean that we do not allow any special characters.
Take the following example sentence: "Java does not support platforms such as TempleOS."
The sentence does not mean that Java does not support any platforms, rather, it means that some platforms are not supported, including the specified example platform.
This comes down to English, and I believe the existing wording should be clear enough.
Social media usernames are currently allowed to end with - to account for usernames like that.
It could be argued that the addition of the word "some" before "special characters" would make the planned enhancement even clearer. However, this references existing behaviour as opposed to describing future planned behaviour. Therefore I believe the original intention of the planned enhancement remains sound.
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.NotInScope]
- [ ] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]
In the DG and UG, it states that special characters such as @ are not allowed for alternate names. This usually covers all special characters, however, their application allowed the use of characters like . and -, causing ambiguity as to what is considered a special character