W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Fwd: Re: [Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>] Re: Normative vs. non-normative references

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:05:05 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA Working Group --

(attention esp. Lynne, Dimitris)

I think this potentially intersects the scope of the "Spec Guidelines" QA 
Framework document.  Recall, our interim proposal (from DD, see Issue#25, 
[1]), for relating to Comm, is through a point-of-contact or liaison, Ian 
Jacobs being the suggest Comm person.  (Question.  Should we appoint a QAWG 
Comm liaison person?)

Btw, in case you want to follow this thread, the Chairs archive is at [2], 
and is readable by members.


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x25
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/

>Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 05:53:46 -0500 (EST)
>From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:53:15 +0100
>To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
>Cc: chairs@w3.org
>X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
>Subject: Re: [Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>] Re: Normative vs. 
>non-normative  references
>Resent-From: chairs@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <chairs@w3.org> archive/latest/1768
>X-Loop: chairs@w3.org
>Sender: chairs-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: chairs-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <chairs.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:chairs-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Norman Walsh writes:
> > [ This bounced the first time; retry ]
> >
> > Hello chairs,
> >
> > As you'll see from the thread below, Joseph Reagle suggested I forward
> > this to the chairs alias. A little background: I've been looking over
> > a bunch of "core" specifications and tracing down their normative
> > references, just to see what the set of dependencies looks like. I
> > noticed that a couple of the specs make no distinction between
> > normative and non-normative references and specifically I commented on
> > the PR comments list for...digital signatures, I think.
> >
> > I'm in favor of the distinction myself, and propose a definition for
> > normative in the message below. Anyway, I agree with Joseph that
> > chairs is an appropriate place to talk about it. (But I'm not a chair,
> > so if there is follow-on discussion, please CC me if you want my
> > opinion :-)
>The CSS drafts don't always make a distinction between normative and
>informative, at least not in the formatting of the list of references,
>but there is a criterium that is often used to determine the status of
>a reference:
>     Can you implement this draft when you don't have access to the
>     referenced document?
>The primary reason we ask that is not because we want to list
>normative references separately, but because we want to be certain
>that normative references are as easily available as the spec itself.
>Thus, when the reference is to another W3C spec, we don't care very
>much whether the reference should be considered normative or not,
>because that spec is readily available; but when the reference is to,
>say, an ISO spec, we sometimes try to include the relevant definitions
>in our own spec and demote the reference to an informal one.
>For example, we have borrowed concepts from a Japanese standard on
>typography, but since we know that that standard is not (freely)
>available in English, we include sufficient text in our spec that you
>don't need to read the Japanese text.
>   Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
>   http://www.w3.org/people/bos/                              W3C/INRIA
>   bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
>   +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 17:04:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC