- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:34:04 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28019 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #2 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 WGs believe that the 199 instances of "for example" which you mention are instances of the phenomenon described in the passage you quote: they are non-normative text, marked as non-normative by being explicitly labeled as 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 WORKSFORME. 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 20:34:05 UTC