W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: what's normative [was: Re: processing plan for SpecGL LC issues]

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:29:25 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030413222610.00b221a8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

Even if I did not like our definition of normative (I do like it), it still 
would not make sense to change it just to be like someone else's 
definition.  We need to be consistent and logical - which we are.  Tat's 
all that's needed.

I see no reason to revisit this topic.

Mark



At 05:44 PM 4/13/2003 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:


>Now that everyone has had a chance to think and read some discussion (from 
>Lofton and me), my first order of business on this issue is to reaffirm 
>that we like our definition of normative.   I agree with Lofton, about 
>leaving the definition as is.
>
>
>Food for thought.....
>
>>>The Checkpoint Priorities:  Are these Normative?  (#106)  (May be moot, 
>>>depending on resolution of definition of normative)
>>
>>Question.  Does he mean the definitions in 1.7, or the priorities 
>>themselves that are associated with each checkpoint.
>
>Good question.  I read it as section 1.7.  But, it really doesn't matter, 
>since we should address both cases.  For section 1.7,  it is not normative 
>(if we stick with last week's agreement).   As for the priorities 
>themselves as associated with each checkpoint - I think that they need to 
>be normative, since they have conformance consequences, in that they 
>identify what belongs in A, AA, AAA.  Thus, the Checkpoint is normative as 
>is the Conformance Requirement statement(s).
>
>
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2003 22:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT