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

[Bug 28020] Normative vs. Non-Normative Text (Examples)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:53:23 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28020-523-UvkPJ8qScv@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28020

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 WGs
believe that the other passages you mention are instances of the phenomenon
described:  they are non-normative text, marked as non-normative by being
explicitly labeled as examples.  

If in any specific passage it is not clear whether a given sentence is a
continuation of an example or a normative statement following the example, then
a bug report against the specific passage is certainly in order.  In general,
the editors try to take some care that it's clear where examples begin and end,
but of course slips are possible.

The passage about the 'substring' function does not seem particularly unclear. 
It provides an illustration of the principle enunciated in the immediately
preceding text, namely:

    Every kind of expression also imposes requirements on the type 
    of its operands.

The passage you quote gives the 'substring' function as an example:  it imposes
the requirement that its first argument be a string (or convertible to string),
and its second and third arguments doubles (or convertible to doubles).  Those
requirements are expressed more directly and more fully elsewhere, and this
example of the kind of thing that is often stated in normative text about this
or that function is not itself the normative statement of these rules regarding
'substring'.  Similar observations apply to the repeated grammar productions. 
(The WGs did not discuss the question, but I think the answer to your question
is 'yes' -- here, as in the appendix, grammatical productions are repeated for
convenience and/or clarity; the repetitions are not themselves normative, in
the sense that if they are removed from the document the normative content of
the document would be unchanged.

[Speaking for myself, it is not clear that introducing a paragraph break and
supplying an example number would have any effect on the questions you are
asking:  anyone who is able to ask whether repetitions of productions [63] and
[49] are normative when these productions are given as an example of how
literal strings are quoted in the grammar, can ask it just as well when the
word 'Example' appears on a line by itself as when it appears in running text.] 

In short, the WGs don't see an issue here.

Accordingly, 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 20:53:25 UTC

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