- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:00:17 +0100
- To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
DONE all, as per the editor's new AI. JJ. David Booth wrote: > > Umit, > > I checked over all 7 Notes that currently exist in our Part1 text, and > it seems clear to me that some (or some parts) were intended to be > normative but others not, as I detailed in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0161.html > > I do see this as largely an editorial or presentational issue, because > as Sanjiva mentioned, I'm not trying to *change* the intended normative > status of anything, I'm just trying to our document is clear and > consistent about which status each statement is supposed to have. > > > > At 02:52 PM 3/17/2004 -0800, Umit Yalcinalp wrote: > > >> 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.) >> >> >> >> David, >> >> 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? >> >> Thanks. >> >> --umit >> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> ORACLE >> Phone: +1 650 607 6154 >> Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 12:01:16 UTC