Re: WGLC: p1 MUSTs

On Apr 30, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Benjamin Carlyle wrote:
> In the vein of clarifying what is meant by "process" I would also suggest dropping the "be able to" wording wherever it appears in MUST statements. Compliance can tested for what a particular actor does or does not do. It can't be tested for what the actor is capable of doing.
> 
I looked and found that "be able to" is the correct wording. It is
possible to test for capabilities -- it is just harder to know
whether the failure is due to a lack of capability or an explicit
decision not to. In these cases, we want to allow the implementation
to decide not to parse at all.
....Roy