-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 257
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Input Purposes for User Interface Components is an appendix, so should be marked as non-normative #3777
Comments
you beat me there by 5 minutes...was just about to push up a PR 🏃 |
Well, you took that merge conflict off my hands, so I had a little time to look at something else |
As noted in the PR, I have located the original official WG response showing that this was clearly intended to be an appendix.
That said, I think it would be good to see if there's anything in a style guide that shows how appendices are supposed to be structured, and make sure we follow that. Some may argue that the sections labelled with letters in our document are the indicators of appendices (again, with no label). @shawna-slh @iadawn are you aware of any guidance on this? My old copy of Chicago states:
|
My suggestion from the meeting: Add the appendix heading about change log, and mark those and appendix a/b/c. (Probably done with the respect based classes rather than in text.) Leave section 7 as it is (removing transction-amount separately), and it essentially is normative by that marking, removing the ambiguity. |
I 👎'd the change (and 👍's @alastc's comment above) because I maintain that regardless of the original intent, the fact that this section is incorporated by reference as a required part of specifying SC 1.3.5 means that the section must be normative (unless we were to update SC 1.3.5 to say something like “for example” when referencing it) |
It looks like there might be a confusion between something "being" normative and something "containing" normative information. "Sections" cannot be normative. Only the specific clauses that are required for conformance are normative.
What is normative?
|
Discussed on backlog call 9/6. Conceptually, adding |
Since this is under TR, probably better to consult @iadawn first rather than me. |
Discussed on TF call 9/13. We remain in agreement with the change and that it is editorial. Regardless, we closed the previously drafted PR #3778 since the fix will not be as easy as that. |
AG decision is memorized back in 21 March 2018. It was during a face-to-face meeting (maybe coincident with CSUN).
|
Discuss on TF call. I had meant to see I could find AG decision in minutes (and not just only the one GitHub issue). |
I had no luck turning up minutes for March 21, 2018. gl listserv messages, Jan - Mar, 2018 |
Overall, if there is a change we should just put "Appendix" above the lettered headings A-C. Let's not touch the numbered sections (including glossary and input-purposes). |
Discussed in the backlog task force meeting on 5th April, Input Purposes for User Interface Components is an appendix, so should be marked as non-normative.
The trick to this seems to be adding a
class="informative"
attribute to the containingsection
element, but building the site locally doesn't create the homepage, so can't check this.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: