[Bug 16080] Why does XSD 1.1 part 1 cite XSD 1.0 2E normatively?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16080

--- Comment #3 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2012-02-22 17:48:40 UTC ---
Michael Kay writes in comment 2

    There's certainly no implication [when spec X refers normatively to
    spec Y] that a conformant implementation of X requires
    or includes a conformant implementation of Y.

I agree that that is the point, or one of the points, at issue.  

In some standards development organizations, the meaning of normative
references is described in words which suggest at least to some readers (e.g.
me) that they do have precisely the implication denied by MK.   Many of the
international standards on my shelf introduce their normative references with
the following words or similar ones:

    The following standards contain provisions which, through reference in this
text, 
    constitute provisions of this International Standard.

Until this morning I had always taken that to mean that any normative provision
of the document referred to was a normative provision of the referring
document, at least unless otherwise stated.  Re-reading the sentence now in the
light of MK's argument I see that it is also susceptible to a more selective
interpretation:  'there are provisions over there which are normative over
here', rather than 'all the provisions over there are normative over here'. 
(Implicit existential quantification rather than implicit universal
quantification.)  

The IESG statement at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html also seems to be
compatible with the existential interpretation (as well as, I think, with the
universal interpretation):

    Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand 
    or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must 
    be present for the technology in the new RFC to work.

The 6th edition (2011) of ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2:  Rules for the structure
and drafting of International Standards 
(http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3146825/4229629/4230450/4230456/ISO_IEC_Directives%2C_Part_2%2C_Rules_for_the_structure_and_drafting_of_International_Standards_%282011%2C_6th_edition%29%28PDF_format%29_.pdf?nodeid=10562502&vernum=-2)
prescribe that normative references should be introduced using wording which
addresses precisely this issue:

    The following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in
this 
    document and are indispensable for its application. For dated references,
only 
    the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of
the 
    referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

The Foreword says that this wording was changed "to clarify that a normative
reference may apply in whole or in part", which suggests that this is not the
first time a group has run into this question. 

I have not yet located any statement in the W3C process document or publication
rules that says what a normative reference does and does not mean.  

If we take MK's view of the matter, there is less work to be done, and the
review I've just done of the meaning of normative references in ISO/IEC, IETF,
and W3C spec suggests that his view is compatible with the words used to say
what the phrase "normative reference" is supposed to mean.  Since the other
view is also compatible with at least some of the formulations, we may want to
add introductory text to make the matter clearer for our spec, but I no longer
think it's as urgent as I thought earlier today.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 17:48:51 UTC