Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 14:38, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> You previously said that you were arguing:
>>
>> 1. Why the html-polyglot authoring guidelines should be produced as a
>>
>>>     *non-normative* document, and
>>>
>>
>> I have pointed out that there is no such thing as a normative or
>> non-normative document in the W3C. Documents are either REC or NOTE.
>> Period.
>>
>
> You are being overly pedantic. Clearly, I mean the statements within the
> document that claim to be normative.


OK, then go to back to something I asked previously, are you asserting that
the Polyglot document cannot or should not make any normative statements?
What is your basis for this assertion? If your basis for this is that this
document doesn't contain a conformance statement, then I would not agree.
There is nothing in the W3C Process Document that requires a TR, whether
REC or NOTE, to contain a formal (or even an informal) conformance
statement.

Regarding publishing as a NOTE or REC, I notice (upon rereading) that the
W3C Process Document states:

"A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate
that work has ended on a particular topic."

As such, unless the HTML WG believes there will be no more work done on
advancing the Polyglot document, then it should not be published as a [WG]
NOTE.

So, to conclude, your FO appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what
is permitted or required by the W3C Process:

(1) a WG should not publish a TR as a NOTE if it expects further work on it;
(2) a WG is free to publish a TR as a REC or NOTE without a formal
conformance statement;
(3) a TR, whether REC or NOTE, can contain statements that are explicitly
marked as normative, non-normative, or otherwise not marked at all;

As such, I believe you should withdraw your FO or take this up the terms of
the W3C Process with the W3C Team.