On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tack Tong <[email protected]> wrote: (in reponse to Nick Crossley) > +1 from me, thinking about Reporting Consumer perspective that has to deal > with any unknown Service Providers.
+1 to Nick means -1 to this change ;-) So far, Nick and Tack are -1 on making this change for the reason that multiple formats place an undue burden on clients, which is certainly a valid concern. But don't forget, the issue proposes a change from MUST to SHOULD. I'm sure folks have seen this before, but just as a reminder here's the definition of SHOULD from RFC-2119: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. My point is that SHOULD is actually a pretty strong word here. - Dave
