W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2004

Re: [SpecGL Draft] B3 list of normative and non-normative references (2nd try)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:49:33 -0400
Message-Id: <C47DF280-F2AF-11D8-9BC6-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>

Le 20 aoŻt 2004, ŗ 04:29, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :

> Le jeu 19/08/2004 ŗ 21:50, Lynne Rosenthal a ťcrit :
>> Looking at this, I propose that we delete it.  It states the obvious. 
>>  It
>> presents something that everyone already does.
>>
>> FYI -Currently it says:
>> Make a list of normative and non-normative references
>> GP: start now and keep adding to it as you go.
>
> I think BjŲrn raised an important question about normative references
> that would be worth adding to SpecGL: when making a normative 
> reference,
> you need to see how future versions of the said specification may 
> affect
> your own document, and also possibly address the way you "use" the

"need to see how future versions of the said specification may affect"
This is almost impossible to plan. But I would encourage to have 
something where we could explain something.

Fact 1: you need an informative and normative reference list. Something 
which has to be clear for people who are not perfectly aware.
	What does mean an informative reference?
	What does mean a normative reference?

Fact 2: The designation of your reference has to be very precise.
	It means if you refer to a whole technology, for CSS, to express a 
topic. It's not at least a normative reference, and it's at best 
something which could to something which explains the topic of CSS.
	When you do refer to a specification which has a normative impact on 
your document, you have to precise the dated URI of the document you 
are referring to AND the precise name of it. CSS 1 != CSS 2 != CSS 2.1

	The problems start to arise when there are things like.
	XML 1.0
	XML 1.0 2nd
	XML 1.0 3rd

Which one is normative, I would say the dated URI is the normative 
document, not the last version, because you can't predict how the 
technology will evolve.


And indeed I proposed to BjŲrn to write something about it.
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jul/0018

[[[
Agreed. I will propose you something. Would you mind writing the Good
Practice for your issue using the template [1] defined for SpecGL and
you will find many examples in the QA WG Mailing list [2], identified
by the flag  [SpecGl Draft].

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/A8A9B604-BB29-11D8-A057-000A95718F82@w3.org
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jul/

Make it short and "fun".
]]]

I had no reply yet. Even to say yes or no.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 13:49:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT