- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:58:59 -0500
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
Do folks think we should define these terms and try to use them consistently? ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: Normative vs. non-normative references Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:32:46 -0500 From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org> To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org On Thursday 24 January 2002 11:19, Norman Walsh wrote: > I note that the PR draft of xmldsig-core makes no distinction in the > references section between normative and non-normative references. > > In the absence of the distinction, are they all normative or > non-normative? Hello Norman, I remember once asking if there was a normative definition of normative. (This certainly came up in questions of dependencies between specifications.) Regardless, never saw anything in writing and a convention for the W3C has yet to appear [1] though some WGs use the distinction. However, I've found the context of the reference to be more useful than this distinction in a bibliography and most of our references are normative (in that the import meaning/protocol/procedure necessary for xmldsig conformance). Quickly eyeballing them I'd say everything is normative except for: Informative: read for interesting context/background [ABA,RDF,SOAP,XHTML1.0,XLink,XML-Japanese] Important: I expect you should read if you're going to be capable of implementing the spec but no meaning is imported. [DOM,SAX,LDAP-DN] [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/ ------------------------------------------------------- -- Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature/ W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 08:58:59 UTC