- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:08:45 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2livrx2cy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Folks, I can't find the minutes of the meeting where I took this action, but nevertheless, I've recorded an action on myself to "Create an erratum to move all the conformance phrases into the conformance section". Near as I can tell, implementing this action would require finding all of the locations in the spec where MUST or MUST NOT are used in the RFC 2119 sense and assuring that the statement was repeated in the conformance appendix. It's clearly a straightfoward exercise, but can someone remind me why we thought this was a valuable change? The conformance appendix begins with "Conformant processors must implement all of the features described in this specification except those that are explicitly identified as optional" so I think we're covered. I doubt that every single normative statement is expressed as a MUST or MUST NOT, and I doubt that doing so would clarify the spec (in fact, I bet it would obfuscate it), so I don't see the point anymore. Hit me with a clue-by-four, please? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 413 624 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 12:09:17 UTC