W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2015

[Bug 28018] Normative vs. Non-Normative Text (Examples)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:30:45 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28018-523-PVkPoofidY@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #1 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
The XML Query and XSLT WGs discussed this bug report on today's call.

The first passage you quote explains that examples are not normative.  The
other passages you quote involve examples specifically identified as such.  The
WGs do not see any contradiction between a statement that examples are
non-normative and the provision of examples.

We are aware that some standards development organizations require that
examples not only be identified as such but be formatted in a special way.  Our
rules for the styling and layout of our specifications do not require this, and
on the whole, those WG members who expressed an opinion did not think that it
would be an improvement, let alone enough of an improvement to justify the
editorial effort involved.  Our experience is that implementors and other
readers have no trouble referring to examples by section and paragraph number.

Accordingly, as instructed by the working groups, I am marking this issue

Patrick, if you believe the arguments given above adequately address your
concerns, or if despite your lack of any such belief you are willing to accept
the WGs' disposition of your comment, please indicate as much by changing the
status of the bug report from RESOLVED to CLOSED.  If you are not satisfied
with the WGs' handling of the issue, please indicate so by changing the status
from RESOLVED to REOPENED, and explain why you do not find the arguments
compelling.  If we haven't heard from you in two weeks, we will take silence
for consent.

Thank you for your comments; I am sorry we were unable to resolve this in the
way you would have wished.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 20:30:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:53 UTC