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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:42:44 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cCdz+Cnb7sWSAg2cF769s8HQhf_Bk=1gef3fw6xjsh+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> Smylers, Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:37:37 +0000:
> >
> > The definition of the term "polyglot markup" is in a section explicitly
> > marked as non-normative in the current draft spec, despite being linked
> > to from elsewhere in that document as a definition:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-polyglot-20121025/#dfn-polyglot-markup
> > I think it's confusing that this definition _isn't_ normative, and I
> > don't understand what linking to a non-normative definition means, or
> > how there can be normative requirements for creating something which
> > doesn't itself have a normative definition.
>
> I believe that it is common, in specs, to denote principles (because
> this is a principle and not a definition, I would say) as
> non-normative. I believe this is also the way the HTML5 spec is
> structured.
>

A definition of a principle in a spec can certainly be considered (by that
spec) as a formal definition and can be marked as (a) normative (principle)
within that spec.

Perhaps here, the section defining "polyglot markup" should be marked as
normative if it is used in a normative fashion elsewhere.

FYI, all ISO and ITU standards consider defined terms/phrases as
"normative" definitions [unless explicitly marked otherwise].
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:43:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 13:43:37 GMT