[...]
+ <code>name</code> attribute. For example, to explicitly specify
s/specify/require
I used the verb 'specify' to indicate that there is an _action_ to be taken. To my non-native ears: "to explicitly require" sounds slightly odd when asking to take an action.
But I'll defer to your native tounge intuition.
FWIW: I noted require because the generated XML in the example is: <feature policy='require' name='pcid'/> I'm OK with the change from v3, but the XML is what I was keying off. Essentially the line (to me) says, this domain requires a CPU that is required to have the 'pcid' feature. Perhaps just being too literal though. John
Thoughts? I can make the adjustment before pushing if desired.
Thanks for the review. Sending a v3; feel free to adjust it as you see fit.