W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Non-constructible constructors and Arrays

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 11:13:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9gvCWXKecGrwQTZWXZQfcErNvV1bFS36bAyR9Es3gOonw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
[...]

> In general, we are moving away from using such text as it creates spec.
> maintenance problems and we have see cases where differences in expression
> between normative/non-normative text  creates confusion.  The non-normative
> text also has a tendency to receive less intensive reviews and  this can
> lead  to it diverging from what is stated in the normative text.
>

Agreed on all but this last. I agree that non-normative text creates the
problems you explain. I agree we need to find a way to minimize these
problems. However, doing so by removing non-normative text seems to me to be
a cure worse than the disease. Specs from the W3C and many other stds orgs
have notational conventions for clearly distinguishing normative from
non-normative test. We don't. How much do they suffer from the same problem?
If the answer is, not much, perhaps all we need is a clearer notational
distinction?


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 18:13:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC