This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1049 - Formal vs prose language normativity
Summary: Formal vs prose language normativity
Status: RESOLVED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: QA
Classification: Unclassified
Component: QASpec-GL (show other bugs)
Version: LC-2004-11-22
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karl Dubost
QA Contact: Karl Dubost
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: needsAction
: 1091 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-21 09:46 UTC by Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Modified: 2005-04-28 11:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-01-21 09:46:35 UTC
"5 Good Practice E [...] make it clear when the English prose and the
formal language overlaps which one should be held for true in case of
discrepancy" -- I would recommend making them _both_ normative and not
have one override the other. If prose and formal language are
inconsistent, then an error has crept into the specification, and
there is no guarentee that the error will be in the one that has been
marked non-normative. Whenever there is an inconsistency, the working
group should IMHO issue a (normative) errata to address the problem.
Comment 1 Karl Dubost 2005-02-14 13:41:14 UTC
*** Bug 1091 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Karl Dubost 2005-03-03 17:36:22 UTC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0021.html

(dh) Issue is that you shouldn't have to choose between the two when  
there is discrepancy. In some cases the formal language does not  
express as much as the prose
(dm) Lack of recognition that prose sometimes contradicts itself.  
Editors sacrifice readability for saying things only once.
(dh) David, any suggestions on how to deal with this?
(dm) Each WG has to decide on whether one statement can contradict  
another, otherwise fallback on errata procedures
(pc) It's more important that the spec be clear and precise, that the  
language be normative, rather than trying to provide guidelines for how  
people should use language. The spec needs to be clear, if something is  
required, it's required, if optional, optional.
(dm) How about if there is a tool, eg. formal notation, that says which  
one dominates in normativity and leave it to the WG to make the  
statement on normativity or not
(pc) We should not mandate use of language
(tb) WGs need too identify what parts are normative
(dm) Issue is what happens when two "normative" statements contradict  
each other and cover the same ground
(kd) Can we find examples where there might be ambiguity between prose  
and formal language?
(pc) If you have an inconsistency, you have a bug in the spec
(kd) The problem is that bugs happen, when the spec gets published it  
will contain bugs. How to minimize this? Some kind of error mechanism?  
If the two lanugages overlap, the one that is right is (I think we've  
said) the formal language.
(tb) That's the way most implementations are doing it
(kd) I agree with Ian. One technique would be to check the prose  
against the formal language. As an exercise before publication, each WG  
should check this
(kd) AI to propose a good practice on this issue
Comment 3 Karl Dubost 2005-03-03 17:44:16 UTC
http://www.w3.org/2005/02/07-qa-minutes

karl: issue 1091, dup of other  issues raised by Ian Hickson, Gary Feldman
... about prose vs formal languages
... opposite views on the topics
tim: not all technologies can use  formal languages
dom: I think we should avoid  having a moral stance on formal language
... the current wording probably goes further than we  want
... we just want to give a technical hint on how to use  efficient formal languages
tim: could we just say "use  formal languages if appropriate"?
mark: too vague
lynne: let's do as we did for  profiles, saying "if you use formal languages" ...
dom: I agree
tim: I think the use of formal  languages should be encouraged
dom: hearing what we say now  about when to use formal language, I think we have a pretty  definition 
on "if appropriate"
mark: with that and "if  applicable", sounds good
dom: what about changing the  title to "use formal languages if applicable" and move the  priority stuff 
as a technique?
karl: I'll take another stab at  rewriting the full good practice
ACTION: karl to rewrite GP 5.E about formal  languages
Comment 4 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-03-21 14:12:51 UTC
SpecGL now clarifies that:
* using formal language when possible is a good thing
* overlap between formal language & prose needs to be noted and clarified wrt
normality
Comment 5 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-04-28 11:53:49 UTC
setting version to LC in case of future use