From rex@RexJaeschke.com Sun May 27 03:48:21 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 06:47:47 -0400 From: Rex Jaeschke Subject: Rob Weir's Comments: Page 01, Comment 08-13, "Electronc Annexes: Normative vs. Informative" To: patrick@durusau.net, "'Dave Welsh'" , "'Doug Mahugh'" , "'Frank Farance'" , "'Jerry Smith'" , "'Jon Bosak'" , "'Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E'" , "'Norm Walsh'" , "'Lynne A. Price'" , "'Richard Barber'" , "'Robert Weir'" , "'Steve Carton'" , "'Tim Schoechle'" , "'Mason, James David (MXM)'" , "'Kevin Trainor'" Organization: C#, VB, .NET, C, C++, Java Seminars and Consulting Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcegSmS7ge0zBdD8QhuZ00EB0wI0hQ== X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Rob states, "There is no explicit indication given as to whether this [electronic] annex is informative or normative. See ISO Directives, Part 2, section 5.2.6". For all parts, the way in which normative and informative text is designated, is described in Part 1, clause 7, "General Description". The intent is that everything not explicitly marked otherwise, is normative, with things explicitly marked as informative, examples, notes, and such, are informative. Having had a quick look, it's not clear to me that we say "that everything not explicitly marked otherwise is normative". Perhaps that's the problem here w.r.t to the XML Schemas. The annexes pertaining to RELAX NG are clearly marked as informative. In that informative text, we find out that an electronic file exists. Rob, are you suggesting that we need to say whether than electronic file itself is informative as well? My understanding is that if one deleted/ignored all informative material, what is left is the bit you need to implement the standard. That is, the only way you can find out about the electronic file is to read the informative annex, which suggests that that file is also informative. But, if V1 feels strongly enough that this needs clarification, then I can take a further look at this. Separately, if we choose to forward these comments, I suggest we combine them into less than six comments, and possibly only one. My concern here is that at the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM), each separate comment discussed will take a certain amount of time for administrative overhead, plus time to address the specific comment. As such, I think if six related comments can be resolved as only one (or possibly two), that would be welcomed by BRM attendees. Unless I am mistaken, this set of six comments appears twice, one immediately following the other. Or am I missing something? Rex