What's wrong with "other" or "additional" in contrast to "recommended" or "preferred"? Or is the intent really to say "don't use these"?
People coming from the IETF background (that is, anyone familiar with how RFCs are phrased) will read "recommended" not as "optional" but as "required unless there are solid countervailing reasons" (my paraphrase).
I think the problem is that "recommended" is really meant that way (vendors are very strongly encouraged not to select arbitrary subsets). But the inverse, that is "not recommended" is not meant that way. It is meant more in the line of a "buyer beware for users to not get their hopes up that all potential tag sequences will be interchangeable.
There's an inherent impossibility here, if one tries to get this across in one sentence. It requires two: one for vendors and one for users.
And Doug may be on to something when he suspects that these might become paragraphs.
A./
PS: I like the suggestion that, if the recommended minimal subset
really reflects vendor agreement on interoperability, that this be
mentioned explicitly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Mar 31 2017 - 18:44:19 CDT