- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:09:50 +0000
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 16:10:31 UTC
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 07:17 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote: > I find being able to have normative appendices quite useful > (and I don't find it such a contradiction in terms--supplementary > does not imply to me if you cut it off it doesn't matter). > > First, there are normative references and non-normative ones, > and unless we develop a new concept (e.g., reference section), > references neither belong in a regular division nor are normative > ones merely informative. > > Second, there is sometimes material that the WG deems normative > to the spec but that would unnecessary confuse or interrupt > the flow of the discourse if put in the middle of the spec. > Unless we are going to develop yet another concept--ISO uses > "Annex" for this, but I think that's silly--having normative > appendices seems to make a lot of sense to me. > > I would urge Susan to reject Dan's request, but I'd be interested > to hear what others have to say too. What about just calling these chunks "sections" (some normative and some not)? _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 16:10:31 UTC