W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:08:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfFGW868RGvkkRgzLsDZmBAmkGK2fOTEggKeDtWE0qzGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1.. That's a lot closer to reality anyway.
On Apr 29, 2013 7:27 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Up until now, we've had this to say about the status of SHOULDs regarding
> conformance (p1, "Conformance and Error Handling):
>
> > An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of
> the requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note that
> SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented
> exceptions is applicable.
>
> After reviewing the specs (and taking in account the misused SHOULDs and
> those I think should be stronger, see previous messages), I believe that
> ALL of the remaining SHOULDs in the set are NOT relevant to conformance,
> but instead  represent implementation guidance.
>
> So, I propose we change the text above in p1 to:
>
> """
> An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of the
> MUST-level requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note
> that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant to conformance, but do not
> formally impact it; instead, they represent implementation guidance.
> """
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 04:08:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC