On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:31:32 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Regarding (1): When I look at (http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/#references), I
do not see anything in this section that says which references are
normative
or informative.
Quite clearly non-normative references are prefixed with "(Informative)".
(I personally like this style a lot more than having two separate
sections, but I suppose opinions differ on that.)
Regarding (2): You say: "Do you have a pointer?" Are you asking for a
pointer to Dean's email (if so, it's earlier in the same thread), or are
you asking for a pointer to the fact that it is inappropriate to include
a normative reference to specs that change at the whim of the authors?
If the latter, sorry, I don't have a pointer, but I expect somewhere in
the
standards world somehow has written up something to this effect. It's
just common sense and accepted practice. Without this, the standards
world would have chaos.
I'm not convinced.
I can't believe this notion would even be challenged. Instead
of you asking me to provide a pointer to show that this is defined
policy, I ask you to find an approved Recommendation at W3C that makes a
normative reference to a spec that is maintained by an organization
without a formal process or patent policy and what openly says its specs
are subject to
change.
This is not a recommendation and won't be for the foreseeable future.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
