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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:13:08 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121105141308.GG2391@stripey.com>
Leif Halvard Silli writes:

> 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 have no problem with there being non-normative principles distinct
from normative definitions.

But currently the phrase "polyglot markup" elsewhere in the document
links to the sentence in the non-normative introduction, which has the
term in <dfn> tags. That certainly gives the impression that the spec
intends that sentence to be the definition of the phrase "polyglot
markup".

> I believe this is also the way the HTML5 spec is structured.

The HTML5 spec has a non-normative introduction, but it doesn't attempt
to define terms in that introduction. All terms used are defined,
normatively, in later sections.

Cheers

Smylers
-- 
New series of TV puzzle show 'Only Connect' (some questions by me)
Mondays at 20:30 on BBC4, or iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyconnect
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 14:13:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 14:13:36 GMT