Re: WebPerfWG call - June 10th 2021 @ 10am PT

That's helpful, thanks! Added that as a comment
<https://github.com/w3c/resource-timing/issues/275#issuecomment-868406152> on
the issue as well.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:08 AM Marcos Caceres <marcosc@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On 25 Jun 2021, at 7:02 am, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net> wrote:
> >
> > RT #275: No mention to WebIDL in conformance section
> >
> >       • Yoav: AI to talk to Marcos and see what that means
> >       • Nic: Marcos is suggesting that the change was intentional
>
> Just to be clear, the redundant text is/was:
>
> """
> The IDL fragments in this specification must be interpreted as
> required for conforming IDL fragments, as described in the [[WEBIDL]]
> specification.
> """
>
> The above is like saying, "phrases written in the English language MUST be
> interpreted as [[English]]". It's tautological and redundant.
>
> The above text has somewhat dubious origins and it's a cary over from a
> bygone era of standardization at the W3C. Thus, if we see it in other
> specs, we should remove it as it adds no value.
>
> As a further note, more modern specifications, such as those at the
> WHATWG, don't even bother with a Conformance section at all. I don't
> necessarily agree with taking it to that extreme, as I personally like to
> know what MUST, SHOULD, and MAY mean and who defines that - but want to
> give the group more context regarding the push to remove redundant
> boilerplate statements such of text above.
>
> Hope that help!
>