Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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
|
