- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:38:36 +0000
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24047 Bug ID: 24047 Summary: Define or link to a definition of the word "non-normative" and possibly the word "normative" Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Keywords: a11y Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML Image Description Extension Assignee: chaals@yandex-team.ru Reporter: laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: public-html-admin@w3.org Hi Chaals, Students have been confused by the term "non-normative" in this spec and are citing sources such as thefreedictionary.com which defines nonnormative as: "nonnormative- not based on a norm [Related Words] nonstandard - varying from or not adhering to a standard;" As a result some get the wrong idea that the informative examples and use cases do not adhere to the spec. I have clarified in class by saying that the informative or non-normative parts of the specification are meant to provide helpful information and guidance. For instance examples are typically used to assist in the understanding or use of any given specification. They are not required for conformance. They should think of non-normative parts of a spec as informational. In contrast the normative parts of a the specification are the criteria for conformance and are associated with RFC2119 keywords such as "MUST" and "SHOULD" and "MAY". Conformance to a standard means that you meet or satisfy the requirements of the standard. Anyway, defining the term "non-normative" (and "normative" too) or linking to good definition(s) would be helpful for people to understand the term(s) in W3C usage. I know that the W3C WAI Education and Outreach Working Group is in the process of drafting a basic glossary. http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html#nonnorm If that gets finished you could link to it. Thank you for your consideration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 13:38:38 UTC