[ebxml-msg] conformance section in MS

Title: 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