- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:25:10 +0100
- 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 http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 12:25:55 UTC