- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 13:45:21 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Apr 2, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Alan Ruttenberg > <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: >> Not normative > > And your point is...? Surely not one of the following? > - People never take nonnormative text seriously. > - People will read all normative specs before looking at nonnormative text. > - Nonnormative text can't be wrong. > - It's OK if nonnormative text is wrong. > - The WG isn't obligated to fix problems in nonnormative text. It's not as bad if it is normative text. - implementations that implement non-normative parts know they are taking risks. - in conflicts normative text trumps nonnormative text - it's easier to fix non-normative parts because they don't have backwards compatibility burdens Summary: misleading but not deadly > > Jonathan
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2011 17:46:04 UTC