W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:19:13 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eEqbyJqyp1nhfpj-3Od7Sija0j6qEhw-7QZB+s8qrrHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 09:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> To a certain extent, using the terms "normative" and "non-normative" with
>> regard to publishing W3C documents is a mis-nomer. The W3C does not label
>> documents as normative or non-normative. It labels them as REC or NOTE.
>>
>
> Yes, that is why I very clearly separated the two arguments.  The document
> itself claims to express normative criteria, which I disagree with.
>

There is nothing wrong with a NOTE defining normative criteria. There is
nothing in W3C Process that even hints at such a restriction, so if you are
arguing against a NOTE defining normative content (which would be needed to
satisfy the constraints of the NOTE), then I would very much disagree with
you.


>
>  What determines if such a document is normative or not is not related to
>> what the document calls itself, it relates to how other specifications
>> (whether published by W3C or not) refer to it. A NOTE can be referenced as
>> a normative document and a REC can be referenced as a non-normative
>> document.
>>
>> So I suggest you de-focus on the notion of normativity, and instead simply
>> focus on the advantages or disadvantages of using either REC or NOTE
>> approach.
>>
>
> I don't think so. It's important to address both issues.
>
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 12:20:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 12:20:06 GMT