Re: WGLC: SHOULD and conformance

+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/
>
>
>
>
>