Re: June Change Proposal: Partial Compliance

On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Thanks, noted here:

It is hopelessly impotent to require "not partial compliance", since
the first requirement that a partially compliant implementation
won't implement is that requirement.

The right way to require this is to create distinct communication
about full compliance or partial compliance or non-compliance,
each of which communicates a strict set of complied requirements.
It might be the case that we define a protocol that has no way to
communicate partial or non-compliance, which is a sensible design
point that this WG can reach agreement on (if we ever bother to
make a call for consensus).

Requiring full compliance, OTOH, is just senseless grandstanding.
We don't need to change the protocol to support a fear of
perception of compliance when we are a long way from convincing
anyone to comply at all.  We need to encourage people to implement.


Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 17:09:38 UTC