Re: [SpecGL Draft] A.1 GP In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

Le mer 18/08/2004 à 18:05, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> I can think of at least two counter-examples.  One, SVG, has the typical 
> verbiage about RFC2119 keywords, etc.  But there is *lots* of stuff that is 
> normative that doesn't involve keywords.  Description of graphical effect 
> of an element, for example -- it is ordinary descriptive prose, but really 
> contains the detailed conformance requirements for graphical viewers.  Only 
> "common sense" tells a reader that it's normative.  (The "Common Sense 
> Conformance Model"!)

I agree this a bug in the SVG spec; and this would go counter to the GP
in C2; I don't see how it shows that this needs to be in the conformance
section.

> I still disagree.  But won't pursue the issue, as it's apparently a 
> minority opinion.

Well, please pursue the issue :) The question is not whether you're in a
minority opinion or not, the question is to try to get consensus by
pinpointing where our disagreement comes from.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org