W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Normative vs Non-normative Notes (was Re: Other suggested editorial changes)

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:08:48 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040318085300.0351ae88@localhost>
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Umit,

I checked over all 7 Notes that currently exist in our Part1 text, and it 
seems clear to me that some (or some parts) were intended to be normative 
but others not, as I detailed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0161.html

I do see this as largely an editorial or presentational issue, because as 
Sanjiva mentioned, I'm not trying to *change* the intended normative status 
of anything, I'm just trying to our document is clear and consistent about 
which status each statement is supposed to have.



At 02:52 PM 3/17/2004 -0800, Umit Yalcinalp wrote:


>David Booth wrote:
>
>>
>>Evidently different people have different ideas about whether "Notes" are 
>>supposed to be normative, so we need to straighten this out.  We 
>>currently have some Notes that are intended to be normative and others 
>>that are intended to be non-normative.  (I'll address the individual 
>>Notes in a separate message.)
>
>
>David,
>
>I am struggling to understand why categorizing a Note is an issue. I was 
>always under the impression that a note, well is a note, one would just 
>write a note to focus on a requirement (or a non requirement) or to 
>clarify a requirement. As long as the spec language is obeyed (rfc2119), 
>the language in the note is explicit about whether something is normative 
>or not, why do we need to change anything?
>
>Thanks.
>
>--umit
>
>>
>>
>>To focus on the general editorial question, I guess I see four options:
>>(a) Have normative Notes only -- Delete non-normative text or move it to 
>>a section that is already non-normative.
>>(b) Have non-normative Notes only -- Move normative text into a paragraph 
>>of its own in the text.
>>(c) Have normative Notes AND non-normative Notes.
>>(d) Have no Notes at all.
>>
>>At present, the spec suggests option a, because Section 1.2 says:
>>[[
>>All parts of this specification are normative, with the EXCEPTION of 
>>pseudo-schemas, examples, and sections explicitly marked as "Non-Normative".
>>]]
>>
>>Personally, I think that informative, non-normative notes can be very 
>>helpful to the reader, so I would prefer option b or c.  And of these 
>>two, I think option b would be better, as it will be simpler to implement 
>>and less messy.  (In a companion message, I'll itemize what I think needs 
>>to be done to each existing Note.)
>>
>>What do others think?
>>
>>
>>At 10:45 AM 3/17/2004 -0800, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
>>
>>>Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>
>>>>From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>>3. We should clearly say that any paragraph marked "Note" is
>>>>>non-normative.  I suggest using the term "Non-normative Note" instead of
>>>>>just "Note" to mark each Note.
>>>>
>>>>Can we do this with a stylesheet change? I have not dealt with this.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wouldn't this change result into all notes being demoted to 
>>>non-normative ex post facto?
>>>
>>>I would object to the note on using the type of the wsdl:service element
>>>becoming all of a sudden non-normative, as that was not the resolution
>>>we recorded consensus on. Others may object to other notes undergoing
>>>a similar treatment.
>>>
>>>Roberto
>>>
>>>--
>>>Roberto Chinnici
>>>Java Web Services
>>>Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>>roberto.chinnici@sun.com
>>
>
>--
>Umit Yalcinalp
>Consulting Member of Technical Staff
>ORACLE
>Phone: +1 650 607 6154
>Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
>
>

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:09:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT