- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:33:31 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt, Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:56:54 +0100: > On 2012-11-05 15:13, Glenn Adams wrote: >> OK, then go to back to something I asked previously, are you asserting that >> the Polyglot document cannot or should not make any normative statements? > > I am asserting that it should not make normative statements regarding > document conformance because it can, by definition, only describe the > overlap of the HTML and XHTML serialisations. All of the constraints > descrived in it are inherently logical conclusions from the normative > requirements in HTML5, and as such, do not need to be normatively > defined twice. > > The document should clarify that everything within it is > non-normative. Currently, only the introduction is labelled as such. [...] > I realise that a NOTE can contain normative statements and never said > otherwise. Bus, as I have already made clear, my rationale for why > the document should only contain non-normative statements is > independent of my rationale for why it should not be a Rec. So, if I understand Lachlan correctly, then he sees it like so: a) Polyglot Markup could, even as NOTE, contain normative statements, HOWEVER: b) Even as a NOTE, Lachlan thinks that it should not make any normative statements but should instead follow the pattern of the introduction and say that nothing in it is normative. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 17:34:07 UTC