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

RE: "Normative Appendix" a contradiction in terms

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:09:50 +0000
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1108138190.11236.488.camel@seabright>
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 07:17 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
> 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.

What about just calling these chunks "sections" (some normative and some

 _ Ian
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 16:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:17 UTC