* Florian Schmaus <[email protected]> [2018-11-20 16:44]: > > -1, but we should add the Note about examples not being normative. > > The primary purpose of the (unwritten) rule that examples are considered > non-normative is that broken examples cannot become or seen as correct > behaviour as of the specification. Your suggestion would add another use > case to the rule and explicitly encourage broken examples. I fail to see > why we would want to do that.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm against changing the wire protocol of a Final XEP to make examples in other XEPs less wrong. I think that we need to add a note into the examples about their non-normativeness, but I'm equally okay with fixing all examples instead. Georg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
