NORMATIVE (was Re: CONSENSUS REVISED 9-20-01)

• From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
• Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 05:11:10 -0700
• To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
• Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010921050514.037e0ba0@localhost>

At 11:35 PM 9/20/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
>So we might think about more shades of grey that just 'normative' and 'not.'

Also, we tend to think of "normative" and "informative" as opposite sides 
of a coin. In everyday usage whatever we put in there (including whatever 
we choose to label "normative") is "informative".

A really big problem is that "normative" is a VERY HEAVY "what's that mean" 
word in most vocabularies - even among those who do this stuff for a 
living. If what it connotes can't be readily communicated, watch out!

One little problem with the concept is that "normative" acquires the sort 
of status that chiseled stone has: even if there's only little errors of 
punctuation/spelling/grammar, the ability to change them is fettered by 
process.

--
Love.
EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY

Received on Friday, 21 September 2001 08:08:19 UTC