On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > [...] > >> In general, we are moving away from using such text as it creates spec. >> maintenance problems and we have see cases where differences in expression >> between normative/non-normative text creates confusion. The non-normative >> text also has a tendency to receive less intensive reviews and this can >> lead to it diverging from what is stated in the normative text. >> > > Agreed on all but this last. I agree that non-normative text creates the > problems you explain. I agree we need to find a way to minimize these > problems. However, doing so by removing non-normative text seems to me to be > a cure worse than the disease. Specs from the W3C and many other stds orgs > have notational conventions for clearly distinguishing normative from > non-normative test. We don't. How much do they suffer from the same problem? > If the answer is, not much, perhaps all we need is a clearer notational > distinction? > > > > ECMA-262 uses the mandated ISO/ECMA formatting conventions for > non-normative text. > I understand. I'm asking whether we need a clearer distinction. > > Allen > > -- Cheers, --MarkMReceived on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 18:46:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC