- From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:13:53 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Section 13 (Conformance clause) in CMSMcQ's comments? Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml- > processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:09 PM > To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > Subject: Updating the conformance section > > 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 12:14:38 UTC