W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: "Normative Appendix" a contradiction in terms

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:15:47 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050209150224.10267190@localhost>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>

Hello Dan,

At 14:32 05/02/09, Dan Connolly wrote:
 >
 >"apキpenキdix
 >          1. An appendage.
 >          2. A collection of supplementary material, usually at the end 
of a book."
 >
 >supplementary... as in: if you cut it off, you haven't changed what's 
specified, right?

Well, looking at Webster OnLine, 'supplementary' points to
'supplement'
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=supplement),
which contains the following:

1 : something that completes or makes an addition <dietary supplements>
2 : a part added to or issued as a continuation of a book or periodical to 
correct errors or make additions
3 : an angle or arc that when added to a given angle or arc equals 180°

"making complete" doesn't exactly match your interpretation of
"you haven't changed what's specified".



 >Normative references, normative grammars, and the like do not belong in 
appendixes.

References, Indices, Glossaries and the like are usually just called
what they are. "Appendix Foo: References" or "Appendix Bar: Glossary"
smack of bad typesetting, usually either because a bad tool is used
(that can't handle things that are not called "Chapter" or "Appendix")
or because the editor doesn't know good practice or doesn't know the
tool well enough.

As for normative grammars, I think they are very well placed in
an appendix. It's okay to have an appendix that is just only
a DTD or a Schema (maybe with an introductory sentence or two),
but it's very weird to have a chapter or section of the spec that
looks that way.

 >I gave this advice to the editors in the WG I chair, regarding the SPARQL 
grammar...
 >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/#grammar
 >
 >and they pointed out that they were just doing like the other specs they 
saw; indeed,
 >I see...
 >
 >   http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#references
 >   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SMIL2-20050201/refs.html

Yes, and these other specs were just doing what is good and widespread
practice in other standards organizations (ISO definitely does
similar things, although they call their Appendices "Annexes")
as well as any book that is carefully edited and typeset.

 >Susan, please consider adding something about appendixes to the W3C 
manual of style.
 >   http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/

Please do, but please base that on long-term typographic tradition
rather than on the interpretation of a single word.


Regards,     Martin. 
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 06:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:13 GMT