RE: on conformance

Hei Thomas ja kaikki.

Worth noting that this NOT a "standards track" specification in the IETF but is only "experimental"; meant to provoke debate.

Not sure that makes it so much helpful. The meter for conformance categories remains RFC 2119<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>.

But I am sure that "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" category of conformance will be favorite of many on this list.

Frank/

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
Sent: 02 April, 2013 06:36
To: public-tracking@w3.org WG
Subject: on conformance

Our colleagues at the IETF have published updated guidance on how to write conformance language.  That might be useful in addressing some of the thorny issues here.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.txt

Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler)