Re: Proposed text for Section 3.1

I'm still uncomfortable that we're trying to define what's normative by 
identifying sections of the spec rather than by the language that we 
actually use in the spec. I'd prefer a reference to the RFC 2119 
terminology, as we had in an earlier draft. I don't have a problem with 
defining sections as non-normative (informative), but I think that 
unless we say this, all sections should be considered potentially 
normative, with the actual determination being the language used.

Can someone explain to me why they think this approach won't work?


Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

> The following is proposed new text for Section 3.1, addressing 
> LC-36,65,106, 108
> Please comment if you do not agree with this proposal.
> Section 3.1 Normative Parts
> The following parts of this document are normative. 
>        Statements prefaced by the keywords, /Conformance Requirements
> /       The priority level associated with each checkpoint statement 
> (title)
>        Section 3, Conformance
> Text that is designated as /normative/ (@@ink to definition) is 
> directly applicable to achieving conformance to this document.  
> Informative parts of this document consist of examples, extended 
> explanations, terminology, and other matter that contains information 
> that should be understood for proper implementation of this document.

Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 15:09:25 UTC