W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Normative vs Non-normative Notes (was Re: Other suggested editorial changes)

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:52:05 -0800
Message-ID: <4058D695.6000505@oracle.com>
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

David Booth wrote:

> Evidently different people have different ideas about whether "Notes" 
> are supposed to be normative, so we need to straighten this out.  We 
> currently have some Notes that are intended to be normative and others 
> that are intended to be non-normative.  (I'll address the individual 
> Notes in a separate message.) 


I am struggling to understand why categorizing a Note is an issue. I was 
always under the impression that a note, well is a note, one would just 
write a note to focus on a requirement (or a non requirement) or to 
clarify a requirement. As long as the spec language is obeyed (rfc2119), 
the language in the note is explicit about whether something is 
normative or not, why do we need to change anything?



> To focus on the general editorial question, I guess I see four options:
> (a) Have normative Notes only -- Delete non-normative text or move it 
> to a section that is already non-normative.
> (b) Have non-normative Notes only -- Move normative text into a 
> paragraph of its own in the text.
> (c) Have normative Notes AND non-normative Notes.
> (d) Have no Notes at all.
> At present, the spec suggests option a, because Section 1.2 says:
> [[
> All parts of this specification are normative, with the EXCEPTION of 
> pseudo-schemas, examples, and sections explicitly marked as 
> "Non-Normative".
> ]]
> Personally, I think that informative, non-normative notes can be very 
> helpful to the reader, so I would prefer option b or c.  And of these 
> two, I think option b would be better, as it will be simpler to 
> implement and less messy.  (In a companion message, I'll itemize what 
> I think needs to be done to each existing Note.)
> What do others think?
> At 10:45 AM 3/17/2004 -0800, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>> From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
>>>> 3. We should clearly say that any paragraph marked "Note" is
>>>> non-normative.  I suggest using the term "Non-normative Note" 
>>>> instead of
>>>> just "Note" to mark each Note.
>>> Can we do this with a stylesheet change? I have not dealt with this.
>> Wouldn't this change result into all notes being demoted to 
>> non-normative ex post facto?
>> I would object to the note on using the type of the wsdl:service element
>> becoming all of a sudden non-normative, as that was not the resolution
>> we recorded consensus on. Others may object to other notes undergoing
>> a similar treatment.
>> Roberto
>> -- 
>> Roberto Chinnici
>> Java Web Services
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>> roberto.chinnici@sun.com

Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 17:52:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:39 UTC