[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: "Non-Normative"

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: "Non-Normative"
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:15:11 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10302181430210.8710-100000@gris>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10302181430210.8710-100000@gris> you write:

>The term "non-normative" is used frequently in XML 1.0 and in related
>specs. What a document means when it purports to be normative is clear to
>me, but when a section is labled "non-normative", I know what it is not,
>but not necessarily what it is.

The point is, of course, that it's not part of the specification
or standard, in the sense that a system that violates it is not
violating the standard (at least, not for that reason).

As to what it *is*, that depends on context.  It might be good advice,
or an explanation of something else that is normative, or a
recapitulation of something that's specified somewhere else.  In the
latter two cases, typically the reason for making something
non-normative is to avoid creating any doubt about exactly which
version is normative.  So if there's a standard for dongles, and the
standard for widgets finds it useful to describe a dongle, it may well
make that description non-normative in order to make sure that no-one
takes it as the definitive standard for dongles.

-- Richard

• References:
  • "Non-Normative"
    • From: Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Are the publishing users happy? Why not?
• Previous by thread: "Non-Normative"
• Next by thread: RE: "Non-Normative"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread