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

RE: "Normative Appendix" a contradiction in terms

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:17:40 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03030BAB80@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>
Cc: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>

I find being able to have normative appendices quite useful
(and I don't find it such a contradiction in terms--supplementary
does not imply to me if you cut it off it doesn't matter).

First, there are normative references and non-normative ones,
and unless we develop a new concept (e.g., reference section),
references neither belong in a regular division nor are normative
ones merely informative.

Second, there is sometimes material that the WG deems normative
to the spec but that would unnecessary confuse or interrupt
the flow of the discourse if put in the middle of the spec.
Unless we are going to develop yet another concept--ISO uses
"Annex" for this, but I think that's silly--having normative
appendices seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I would urge Susan to reject Dan's request, but I'd be interested
to hear what others have to say too.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spec-prod-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:spec-prod-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 0:32
> To: spec-prod@w3.org
> Cc: Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Subject: "Normative Appendix" a contradiction in terms
> 
> 
> "ap*pen*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?
> 
> Normative references, normative grammars, and the like do not 
> belong in appendixes.
> 
> 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
> 
> Susan, please consider adding something about appendixes to the W3C 
> manual of style.
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 12:18:15 GMT

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