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 21:38:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dnw3ccufrvf4vFo2SECJ5iOjD+SrHJ8ZFW2ysfkfh3eg@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 8:25 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 13:19, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Again, the arguments I presented against the document claiming to be
> normative are separate from the argument against it being a Rec.  Please
> stop pretending I have conflated the two issues.  I want to ensure the spec
> is both informative and is given NOTE status for separate reasons.
>
>
You previously said that you were arguing:

1. Why the html-polyglot authoring guidelines should be produced as a
>    *non-normative* document, and


I have pointed out that there is no such thing as a normative or
non-normative document in the W3C. Documents are either REC or NOTE. Period.

You also say:

Specifications should be considered normative when they seek to define
> implementation and authoring conformance criteria.  Documents that merely
> seek to describe authoring practices or provide tailored information to a
> particular audience about content which is normatively defined elsewhere,
> should be non-normative.


On its own, a particular document has no status from the perspective of
normativity. It is normative or non-normative only through its use by
another document. Since you have not cited another document referring to
the Polyglot document, it can't be evaluated for normativity on its own
accord.

Your definition of whether a document should be considered normative or not
is clearly wrong, and not how standards work in general.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:39:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 13:39:20 GMT