ISSUE-177 draft response

Hi all,

Here's a draft response to Jeremy on [ISSUE-177], let me know what you
think. Note *this is just a draft, not the actual response* -- I'll
wait for feedback from the WG before replying formally to
Jeremy. Feel free to post your thoughts at any time, Jeremy


Dear Jeremy

Thank you for your comments [1]:

1) labeling normative material (editorial - suggest no or little

I assume this issue has been considered before, however I think I
like it how it is.
My immediate reaction on seeing an LC Rec track doc that does not
clearly label either normative material or informative material or
both, is to request such labeling, since it is usually a good
Once I had finished the ToC I had determined that this would be one
of my comments.
However, by the time I had finished 1.3 I was having second
thoughts on this, and overall, I think the document gives subtle
gradations of normativity to its various constraints and
recommendations, which quite possibly actually works, and such
subtly cannot be achieved with the hammer of "1. Introduction
(Informative)". In general it is not a good practice to omit such
labeling because it relies on having editors who can write well. I
believe this to be the case in this instance.

Perhaps the references should be split into normative references
and informative ones ...


We are pleased to note your comments regarding the quality of the  
overall writing of the document. We believe that the distinction  
between normative and informative material is sufficient in the  
document in its current form. We also note that no other comments  
have been received on this point, and conclude that others in the  
community do not see problems in the lack of "sledgehammmer" labelling.

As a result, we propose no change in response to your comment.


	Sean Bechhofer
	Alistair Miles


Sean Bechhofer
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 11:01:31 UTC