[wg/did] change suggestion by @rxgrant

[pchampin]

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

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

[rxgrant]

I would change the "should not"s to "MUST NOT"s.

[pchampin]

STRAWPOLL : please react to this post ("this PR" refers to changes up to e4ed7af)

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

[cwilso]

I don't understand the goal of obviating this.

[rxgrant]

@cwilso it was explained in the thread that this came out of.

[brentzundel]

I continue to maintain that this is an unnecessary change.
Also, this charter is not a specification, so adding normative language does not make sense to me. I can't approve with the normative language. I could hold my nose and not object if it were removed.

[cwilso]

@rxgrant that's... not a response? Where was that discussion?

[pchampin]

Also, this charter is not a specification, so adding normative language does not make sense to me. I can't approve with the normative language.

@brentzundel see #467 (comment)

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...

That being said, as you +1'ed on Joe's proposal above, I'm accepting it.

[pchampin]

@jandrieu

However, I do have a concern that even the language I propose would mean we could not maintain the Rubric as a NOTE. It is expected to shift to a registry, but we should clarify how this language affects that publication.

I believe that your latest proposal ("beyond those explicitly listed") is enough to "protect" the registry.