W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: HP review for LC (spec_lean normative extract)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:32:15 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1172604736.4098.189.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:57 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> 
> 3) clarify normative text
> 
> A silly pedantic point is that while the textual conventions for
> normative text are very clear and clean, that are not followed
> systematically.

Quite. :-/

I don't know if you saw the link from the TOC...
  "Extract: normative material only @@in progress"
  -> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_lean

I had in mind to carefully review that this normative extract
made sense on its own.

Then I had in mind to drop it altogether, since I'm not all
that invested in distinguishing between normative and informative
stuff in the spec. The words in the spec are in the spec.

But this review comment gives me pause. Hmm.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:32:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT