[Bug 12570] Missing normative reference to PDF

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12570

Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO

--- Comment #1 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-06-24 19:20:50 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Additional Information Needed
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: I cannot see any reference to PDF other than in examples.  Some of
these are in normative text, but those are all clearly marked with "e.g." or
"for example".  Please either say exactly where PDF is referred to in a
normative context, or explain why we should have references (presumably
informative) to specifications that are only mentioned in examples or
non-normative contexts.

Note that there are many other formats that are mentioned only in examples. 
E.g., one example in "The source element" mentions H.264, AAC, MP4, MPEG-4,
AMR, 3GPP, Theora, Vorbis, Ogg, Speex, FLAC, and Dirac.  Do you think that all
of these formats should have informative references to the relevant standards
added?  If not, why is PDF different?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://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 Friday, 24 June 2011 19:20:52 UTC