W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:25:10 +0100
Message-ID: <5097B026.3020701@lachy.id.au>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-11-05 13:19, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote:
>> On 2012-11-05 09:00, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> To a certain extent, using the terms "normative" and "non-normative" with
>>> regard to publishing W3C documents is a mis-nomer. The W3C does not label
>>> documents as normative or non-normative. It labels them as REC or NOTE.
>> Yes, that is why I very clearly separated the two arguments.  The document
>> itself claims to express normative criteria, which I disagree with.
> There is nothing wrong with a NOTE defining normative criteria. There is
> nothing in W3C Process that even hints at such a restriction, so if you are
> arguing against a NOTE defining normative content (which would be needed to
> satisfy the constraints of the NOTE), then I would very much disagree with
> you.

Again, the arguments I presented against the document claiming to be 
normative are separate from the argument against it being a Rec.  Please 
stop pretending I have conflated the two issues.  I want to ensure the 
spec is both informative and is given NOTE status for separate reasons.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 12:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:58 UTC