Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> Lachlan Hunt, Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:56:54 +0100:
> > On 2012-11-05 15:13, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > I am asserting that it should not make normative statements regarding
> > document conformance because it can, by definition, only describe the
> > overlap of the HTML and XHTML serialisations.  All of the constraints
> > descrived in it are inherently logical conclusions from the normative
> > requirements in HTML5, and as such, do not need to be normatively
> > defined twice.
> >
> > The document should clarify that everything within it is
> > non-normative.  Currently, only the introduction is labelled as such.
>   [...]
> > I realise that a NOTE can contain normative statements and never said
> > otherwise.  Bus, as I have already made clear, my rationale for why
> > the document should only contain non-normative statements is
> > independent of my rationale for why it should not be a Rec.
>
> So, if I understand Lachlan correctly, then he sees it like so:
>
> a) Polyglot Markup could, even as NOTE, contain normative
>    statements, HOWEVER:
>
> b) Even as a NOTE, Lachlan thinks that it should not make any
>    normative statements but should instead follow the pattern
>    of the introduction and say that nothing in it is normative
>

That's how I interpret his position; however, I disagree with it because I
do not accept that one cannot reasonably define or even merely state (as
normative) what he asserts are "inherently logical conclusions from the
normative requirements in HTML5".

It is often the purpose of "Guideline" type documents to make clear what
might not be otherwise obvious and to fill in gaps in more formal
definitional specifications, while providing information about preferred or
recommended usage patterns. If such guidelines do not (unintentionally)
contradict the definitions from which they draw, then there is no harm in
stating them and even labeling them as "normative" guidelines per se. If,
on the other hand, such guidelines intentionally override or change the
interpretation of those definitions, then that is effectively creating new
definitions, which again, can be normative as well.