[wg/did] change suggestion by @jandrieu

[pchampin]

This PR reflects a change orinally proposed by @jandieu at #448 (comment)

It was discussed with some AC reviewers during today's meeting.

[pchampin]

STRAWPOLL : please react to this post ("this PR" refers to changes up to efd17fc)

• 👍 I support this PR
• 👀 I can live with this PR
• 👎 I object to this PR

[philarcher]

I can live with this PR as it changes nothing. All work in all WGs proceeds by consensus so, sure, it can be added as a line but it's true whether it's stated or not.

[brentzundel]

I agree with Phil's assessment and will not block even though I don't feel like such language is necessary or fitting for a charter.

The charter is not a specification. I do not believe normative language in a charter is appropriate, so I do object unless that is removed.

[pchampin]

The charter is not a specification. I do not believe normative language in a charter is appropriate, so I do object unless that is removed.

@brentzundel there are actually precedents of normative language in W3C charters :

• https://www.w3.org/2022/06/dx-wg-charter.html
• https://www.w3.org/2023/04/timed-text-wg-charter.html

In a sense, the charter specifies how the group will operate, so this is not entirely inappropriate...

[brentzundel]

The charter is not a specification. I do not believe normative language in a charter is appropriate, so I do object unless that is removed.

@brentzundel there are actually precedents of normative language in W3C charters :

• https://www.w3.org/2022/06/dx-wg-charter.html
• https://www.w3.org/2023/04/timed-text-wg-charter.html

In a sense, the charter specifies how the group will operate, so this is not entirely inappropriate...

Just because others have done it incorrectly is not a reason for us to do so as well.