Re: [SpecGL Draft] A.1 GP In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

I agree with Dom
It seems to me that we are making a fuss about something that people seem 
to not have any problem with. Most people are able to understand and find 
the normative language (i.e., normative content).

--lynne


At 06:01 AM 8/18/2004, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
>Le lun 16/08/2004 à 22:41, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> > Le 05 août 2004, à 15:04, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> > > Good Practice:
> > >     In the conformance clause, define how normative language is 
> expressed.
>
>So, trying to clarify what I was saying during Monday's teleconf:
>- I think we really mean how "conformance requirements are expressed"; I
>don't know what we would mean by "normative language", e.g. how does
>"normative language" relate to "normative content" [C2 does in fact uses
>the "conformance requirements" term rather than "normative language"]
>- having reviewed quite a few W3C specifications, I know that I don't
>think it's a bug for anyone not to describe its conformance requirements
>style in the conformance section, i.e. I wouldn't ask anybody to change
>their specs if the information is already available in an obvious place,
>like a "Terminology" section; as such, I don't feel compelled to put
>this as a good practice, since I know I wouldn't in fact recommend it
>- I agree that an option could be to relax the GP to allow linking from
>the conformance section rather than including in it; but I know as a
>spec author I would find that useless
>- I like that our new SpecGL is lite; creating a good practice for this
>looks too heavy for me
>
>I'm still of the opinion that this GP should be in C2, with a technique
>indicating to put it in the conformance section or in a terminology
>section
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 14:53:40 UTC