- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:52:27 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That works for me too. On 30/04/2013, at 6:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > I don't believe that suggested text is consistent with RFC2119. > > In fact, the existing second sentence is just wrong (there is no > need for documented exceptions), so let's just delete it. > The existing first sentence is fine. > > ....Roy > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Mark Nottingham 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/ >> >> >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 08:52:54 UTC