[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-msg] conformance section in MS
David, Ian,
"Editorial" point on conformance section again...:
As it was agreed to move a more detailed MS conformance clause (with levels or profiles) out of the spec document,
and into a separate document (probably the implementation guidelines), I think it is rather redundant to
have any conformance description at all in the spec body.
This being said, if we still want to insert a basic conformance requirement (e.g. based on Chris' draft), then I would
suggest the following rewording, so that there is no confusion in readers mind:
1- Instead of "Implementation conformance", use title : "Minimal (or general) requirements for conformance",
as a more detailed conformance clause will expand on this section in another document.
2- in (b), "optional module(s)" should be replaced by "additional module(s)" to be consistent with spec wording.
3- Insert a mention that more details on conformance profiles and their implementation
will be found in a companion document ("MS implementation guidelines") to be published soon after.
Besides this, I still want to point out that the RFC 2119 keyword explanation (referred in (a) of Chris draft)
- especially for optional features - is not enough to remove any ambiguity when implementing.
That is the whole point of strong vs. weak conformance definitions.
So I would either insert the strong/weak conformance definitions and refer to them, or simply say in (a) that the
core features/modules must always be implemented as specified in Part I.
(and we would also move these definitions in the implementation guidelines)
Regards,
Jacques Durand
Fujitsu Software
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC