This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Hi Chaals, Students have been confused by the term "non-normative" in this spec and are citing sources such as thefreedictionary.com which defines nonnormative as: "nonnormative- not based on a norm [Related Words] nonstandard - varying from or not adhering to a standard;" As a result some get the wrong idea that the informative examples and use cases do not adhere to the spec. I have clarified in class by saying that the informative or non-normative parts of the specification are meant to provide helpful information and guidance. For instance examples are typically used to assist in the understanding or use of any given specification. They are not required for conformance. They should think of non-normative parts of a spec as informational. In contrast the normative parts of a the specification are the criteria for conformance and are associated with RFC2119 keywords such as "MUST" and "SHOULD" and "MAY". Conformance to a standard means that you meet or satisfy the requirements of the standard. Anyway, defining the term "non-normative" (and "normative" too) or linking to good definition(s) would be helpful for people to understand the term(s) in W3C usage. I know that the W3C WAI Education and Outreach Working Group is in the process of drafting a basic glossary. http://www.w3.org/WAI/glossary/basic.html#nonnorm If that gets finished you could link to it. Thank you for your consideration.
The phrase ”non-normative“ is standard vocabulary in w3c specs. For instance the ReSpec spec production tool inserts the phrase “This section is non-normative“ just beneath the heading of sections that are not normative. Thus I don't believe in finding a synonym. But it *is* confusing that the spec _begins_ with the words «everything in this spec is non-normative» as this begs the question “so why should I read this document?“ I think it would be less confusing if it was possible to make a more positive statement, first, like so:: «Everything in this specification is normative ….» And then to end with the exeptions: “ ... except when otherwise stated”. Or, to perhaps lean towards the “synonym” solution could be to focus on the word “Conformance“ instead of focusing on (non-)normative. E.g. explain which parts of the spec that contains conformance rules.
Hi Leif, (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #1) > The phrase ”non-normative“ is standard vocabulary in w3c specs. For instance > the ReSpec spec production tool inserts the phrase “This section is > non-normative“ just beneath the heading of sections that are not normative. > > Thus I don't believe in finding a synonym. Yes, the terms are standard vocabulary in W3C specs. But they are not defined anywhere that I can find (except the EOWG draft), which presents the problem as it states that doc is not to be cited. > But it *is* confusing that the spec _begins_ with the words «everything in > this spec is non-normative» as this begs the question “so why should I read > this document?“ Yes it had exactly that affect.
(In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #2) > Yes it had exactly that affect. The reference to ”illustration”, ”example“, “author guideline”, "note" etc may also cause uncertainty in the reader about whether he/she will manage to understand whether a particular part of the spec falls under those labels and thus is not normative. A reference to ”sections marked this and that way" (e.g. “sections marked as non-normative”) would not create such uncertainty.
(In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #1) > The phrase ”non-normative“ is standard vocabulary in w3c specs. For instance > the ReSpec spec production tool inserts the phrase “This section is > non-normative“ just beneath the heading of sections that are not normative. WCAG 2.0 uses the word "Informative". And they define the term as well as "normative" http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#informativedef http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#normativedef It might be clearer and worth considering replacing "non-normative" with the word "informative" and link to the WCAG 2.0 definitions. btw, Ian wrote some useful info on the kinds of statements in specs. He used the phrase: "Informative descriptions". http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1
> Normative: Text in a specification which is prescriptive or contains conformance requirements. — http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary#N > Informative: Text in a specification whose purpose is informational or assistive in the understanding or use of the specification, and which contains no conformance requirements or test assertions. — http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary#I See also http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#glossary
Heh! Good points, Laura and Karl: Non-Normative is actually not defined anywhere. But Normative and Informative are. Informative is also a positive word - it doesn’t instill in the reader the thought that this is not useful to read. It is probably better to use Informative than to define “Non-Normative”.
(In reply to Karl Dubost from comment #5) > > Normative: Text in a specification which is prescriptive or contains conformance requirements. > — http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary#N > > > Informative: Text in a specification whose purpose is informational or assistive in the understanding or use of the specification, and which contains no conformance requirements or test assertions. > — http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary#I > > See also http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#glossary Thank you Karl! (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #6) > Non-Normative is actually not defined > anywhere. Except outside of the W3C where people get the wrong idea about what the term means in the spec. > But Normative and Informative are. Informative is also a positive > word - it doesn’t instill in the reader the thought that this is not useful > to read. Agreed. > It is probably better to use Informative than to define > “Non-Normative”. That would be great. Then the spec could point to W3C definitions.
(In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #7) > (In reply to Karl Dubost from comment #5) > > It is probably better to use Informative than to define > > “Non-Normative”. > > That would be great. Then the spec could point to W3C definitions. Agreed. We'll try to do this in the next draft.
All references to non or not normative have been changed to informative and links to the QA spec are included when the terms "informative" and "normative" are first used (Conformance section) in the current ED: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html. Changeset71: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/rev/b47874bf45dd Changeset72: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/rev/7fb44d0e1473
Hi Chaals and Mark, (In reply to Chaals from comment #8) > Agreed. We'll try to do this in the next draft. (In reply to Mark Sadecki from comment #9) > All references to non or not normative have been changed to informative and > links to the QA spec are included when the terms "informative" and > "normative" are first used (Conformance section) in the current ED: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc. > html. > > Changeset71: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/rev/b47874bf45dd > Changeset72: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/rev/7fb44d0e1473 Thank you! VERY Much appreciated.