Retroactively flagging FMUs as non-compliant about fmi-cross-check

[chrbertsch]

IMHO "compliance" should be w.r.t the FMI standard and not w.r.t. a validation tool.
If the other way round the FMU would be valid according to the standard by fail the validation tool check, you would not accept this, but insist on fixing the tool.
Thus I think everything is ok and propose to close this issue.

[Maplesoft-fmigroup]

Ideally yes, the FMUs should be compliant wrt the standard. But how do you check?
Also, it seems odd to label FMUs that were deemed valid for couple of years as non-compliant all of a sudden.

[lochel]

If a FMU is actually not compliant with the FMI standard then it must be labeled as such. I guess we all can agree on that at least. It is unfortunate if it gets discovered later on but, never the less, one cannot expect other tools to support such a non-compliant FMU. Therefore, it must be flagged as non-compliant - even retroactively.