Technology scope update

[alastc]

Closes #224

[jspellman]

Looks good as discussed in subgroup

[rachaelbradley]

I am personally OK with this change but several members have over the past year questioned whether we should provide a conformance model. This change will commit us to doing so.

[GreggVan]

Although one technically can have a standard without a conformance model — it is unclear how to conform. Or you can’t clearly say what you need to do to conform. In such cases I think it becomes more of an Informal Standard — more of an informal guideline or best practices document, lacking the formal structure and rigor of a traditional standard with a clear conformance model. Gregg

…

On Mar 5, 2024, at 5:14 AM, rachaelbradley ***@***.***> wrote: I am personally OK with this change but several members have over the past year questioned whether we should provide a conformance model. This change will commit us to doing so. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#734 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXUGBCJ3FZIZ4IY4KXLYWXAKXAVCNFSM6AAAAABD4GLMCSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNZYG42TEOBVGQ>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.