style guide: no requirements in "Examples" sections

[ralfhandl]

Follow-up to #4339 (comment).

PR #4339 added text to an "Examples" section that used requirements language with "MUST" and "MAY". In this case the text was just copied verbatim from "non-example" sections of the spec, and no new requirements were added.

Better style is to

• not to add requirements in a section called "Examples" or similar because readers may be confused whether these are really normative requirements or just explanations to the examples
• not to use requirements language in explanations to examples

Tick one of the following options:

• schema changes are included in this pull request
• schema changes are needed for this pull request but not done yet
• no schema changes are needed for this pull request

[lornajane]

I tried to follow the thread of the other pull request, some comments, and what caused this change, but I'm not really clear, sorry. Could you add a note to the pull request description about what problem this solves or what we need to do or not do? I think it would help to inform the reviewer (me!)

[lornajane]

Thanks for the update and the description, feel much more confident that I know what I'm approving this time!