- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:13:37 +0100
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:02:06 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > It seems a bit circular to me to have a requirement that requirements be > followed; isn't it enough to reference RFC2119? > > Maybe we can write it as statements of fact, as in: > > Documents conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST > and > MUST NOT constraints given for documents in this specification. > > Processors conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST > and > MUST NOT constraints given for processors in this specification. > Processors do not have to check or enforce any of the constraints > given > for documents in this specification. > > Still, it seems to be stating the obvious: to be conforming, you have to > conform. I've now added something along the lines of the above. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 08:14:20 UTC