Normative requirement for list profile tokens operation

[azaroth42]

Post FPWD:

https://rawgit.com/w3c/dxwg/conneg-doc/conneg-by-ap/index.html#requestsandresonses

Operations 1 and 2 are MUST, but there is no normative assertion about what clients are to do with the list profile tokens operation.

Proposal: Servers MUST implement the specification (yes, I know this is not what the informative text says).

Rationale: If the server does not use tokens, then the response is fixed and empty. Clients can then rely on it rather than testing for for whether it responds correctly or not. The implementation burden is very low, and the interoperability gain relatively high.

Otherwise, I think it's a SHOULD.

[nicholascar]

I like this idea. Easier to understand if you MUST implement things but then just return nothing if it doesn't apply to you.

[nicholascar]

@azaroth42 I've found this issue trawling old issues for Conneg by P. It's long been answered in the way you suggest - servers MUST implement list profiles, see 2PWD and also the ED, due for 3PWD shortly.

Adherence now to a Functional Profile of the abstract model is much more completely documented in the ED too.

Are you happy with this result?

[rob-metalinkage]

Actually list tokens was removed - so this is moot.

[larsgsvensson]

@rob-metalinkage scripsit:

Actually list tokens was removed - so this is moot.

Was this comment meant for another issue?

[larsgsvensson]

@azaroth42 Have you had a chance to review @nicholascar's comment above? Since we're moving towards CR we'd appreciate your feedback!