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

Re: Proposed text for Section 3.1

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:37:38 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030418152325.01c06ff8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Patrick.

Thanks for commenting and helping to clarify this.

Can you propose specific text to include?
Do you mean, include the bullet item that is currently in the text: "all 
the sentences using a capitalized keyword from RFC 2119"
Would this also mean that only sentences with RFC 2119 keywords are 
normative, and not other things?

Typically, I've seen sections of text identified as Normative or 
Non-normative, and not just the sentences containing RFC 2119 
terminology.  LC-65 asked, "Is a sentence containing an RFC 2119 keyword a 
unit of being normative, or do you mean that the paragraph containing such 
a sentence is or can be the unit?.  So, if a Conformance Requirement 
contains several sentences, but only one of those sentences have a MUST (or 
whatever), then what about the rest of the sentences in the Conformance 
Requirement?

In a side note, I'm also concerned about how we will resolve LC67, Susan 
Lesch's caution about using RFC 219.  "Imperatives of the type defined in 
RFC2119 nust be used with care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST 
only be used where it is actually required for interoperability or to limit 
behavior which has potential for causing harm."
Do we believe that our requirements are necessary for interoperability?  I 
guess we must.

regards
Lynne



At 03:08 PM 4/18/2003, Patrick Curran wrote:

>I'm still uncomfortable that we're trying to define what's normative by 
>identifying sections of the spec rather than by the language that we 
>actually use in the spec. I'd prefer a reference to the RFC 2119 
>terminology, as we had in an earlier draft. I don't have a problem with 
>defining sections as non-normative (informative), but I think that unless 
>we say this, all sections should be considered potentially normative, with 
>the actual determination being the language used.
>
>Can someone explain to me why they think this approach won't work?
>
>Thanks...
>
>
>Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>
>>The following is proposed new text for Section 3.1, addressing 
>>LC-36,65,106, 108
>>Please comment if you do not agree with this proposal.
>>
>>Section 3.1 Normative Parts
>>
>>The following parts of this document are normative.        Statements 
>>prefaced by the keywords, /Conformance Requirements
>>/       The priority level associated with each checkpoint statement (title)
>>       Section 3, Conformance
>>
>>Text that is designated as /normative/ (@@ink to definition) is directly 
>>applicable to achieving conformance to this document.
>>Informative parts of this document consist of examples, extended 
>>explanations, terminology, and other matter that contains information 
>>that should be understood for proper implementation of this document.
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 15:37:47 GMT

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