On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:31:32 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Regarding (1): When I look at (http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/#references), I > do not see anything in this section that says which references are > normative > or informative. Quite clearly non-normative references are prefixed with "(Informative)". (I personally like this style a lot more than having two separate sections, but I suppose opinions differ on that.) > Regarding (2): You say: "Do you have a pointer?" Are you asking for a > pointer to Dean's email (if so, it's earlier in the same thread), or are > you asking for a pointer to the fact that it is inappropriate to include > a normative reference to specs that change at the whim of the authors? > If the latter, sorry, I don't have a pointer, but I expect somewhere in > the > standards world somehow has written up something to this effect. It's > just common sense and accepted practice. Without this, the standards > world would have chaos. I'm not convinced. > I can't believe this notion would even be challenged. Instead > of you asking me to provide a pointer to show that this is defined > policy, I ask you to find an approved Recommendation at W3C that makes a > normative reference to a spec that is maintained by an organization > without a formal process or patent policy and what openly says its specs > are subject to > change. This is not a recommendation and won't be for the foreseeable future. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:55:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:21 GMT