W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: Meaning of normative references [was: Update on namespaces]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:49:06 -0500
Message-ID: <33B06B02.6A74@w3.org>
To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
David put forth a conjecture:

	IF XML cites ISO8879 normatively,
	THEN implementors of XML are implementors
		of ISO8879, and hence may need to consult
		that spec.

You claimed the conjecture is false, and I have asked
you to defend your position. I'll ask one more time. If
I get rhetoric in return this time, I'll just dismiss it;
I encourage others to do the same.

Sometimes I find your rhetoric entertaining. But this
is one of the few black and white issues around, and I
don't appreciate your rhetorical answer.


len bullard wrote:
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> 
> David G. Durand wrote:
> 
> > > > I still disagree with this. A normative reference turns 8879 into mandatory
> > > > reading for implementors, and implies that _if_ there's a hole in the XML
> > > > spec, then 8879 may automatically be invoked to clarify things
> 
>  len bullard wrote:
> 
> > > No.  It says where XML uses SGML as the intellectual basis of its
> > > construction, it is legally obligated to maintain that inviolate.
> >
> > Huh??????
> >
> > You seem to be using the term "normative reference" in some
> > way that I'm not familiar with. Please explain. The meaning
> > of the term "normative reference" that I'm familiar has exactly
> > the consequences that David points out.
> 
> Consequence arises from action not declaration.
> Otherwise, the word would be the thing.


-- 
Dan Connolly
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 1997 20:48:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:44 EDT