[oslc-core] Should RDF/XML be MUST?

[Dave]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Tack Tong <tacktong at ca.ibm.com> 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