Re: [progress-events] default action suggestion

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I wasn't sure whether to explicitly mark non-normative sections. In part 
> because at least one section is normative but does not use RFC 2119 
> keywords (section 3.1) as it being normative comes only in to play when 
> referenced with an accompanying conformance requirement. So I was not 
> sure whether that would make sense. If more people feel strongly about 
> this I could explicitly mark section 1, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4, and appendix 
> Acknowledgments non-normative.

FWIW: The purpose of marking a section as non-normative is two-fold: it 
allows spec lawyers to quickly skip the section when trying to find the 
normative answer to a question, and it allows spec reviewers to notice 
when a requirement has been accidentally added to a place where the editor 
did not intend to have requirements.

So for example, in the HTML spec I haven't marked the acks section as 
non-normative because it's obviously non-normative, and adding it doesn't 
add anything (no spec lawyer is going to look there anyway, and reviewers 
will complain if I put a requirement there regardless). But the index 
sections look suspiciously like they have requirements or definitions in 
them, so I mark those explicitly non-normative to help readers out and 
help reviewers warn me if I make a mistake.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 21:56:11 UTC