- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:37:43 +0100
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
At 14:00 +0100 28/01/09, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:55:25 +0100, Philip TAYLOR ><Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: >>Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>>Rather, the question is why this specification needs to be >>>normative given that it contains the same information as the HTML >>>5 specification already does. >> >>Is the simple answer to this question not just >>"because if it is non-normative, it is of no use" ? > >I do not think so. I agree. Most people using C learn(ed) it from the non-normative Kernighan and Ritchie <http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Prentice-Hall-Software/dp/0131103628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233148595&sr=8-1> (OK, maybe I am too old). I really doubt that many learn it from, or use for daily reference, the formal ANSI C specification, which is normative. That doesn't stop the book from being worth $46 according to Amazon (well, OK, they ask for $46, which is not quite the same). Nor does it stop the HTML WG from producing one or more helpful and informative non-normative guides targetted at specific audiences. -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 13:39:48 UTC