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: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:42:29 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03031E754E@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, 11 February, 2005 11:10
> To: Paul Grosso
> Cc: Dan Connolly; spec-prod@w3.org; Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Subject: RE: "Normative Appendix" a contradiction in terms
> 
> 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 not)? 

That seems to lose information, both in terms of the markup
and in terms of what gets presented to the reader.  It's
doable, but it's a backward step.  Why would we want to
develop spec guidelines that reduce the effectiveness of
our publications? 

Organizing specs into sections and appendices is useful
both to spec writers and readers--why lose this capability?

And in what way is an appendix clearly labeled as Normative
confusing as to its normativity?

I fail to see the problem we're trying to solve here, and
the suggested "solution" has pain associated with it (both
in terms of legacy and in terms of where we'd end up), so
I'm unclear why we'd want to do this.

paul
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 18:55:15 GMT

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