w3c
Be consistent with terms "non-normative" and "informative"
In various parts of the document the terms "non-normative" and "informative" are used, and at no point do we state that they in fact mean the same thing, giving rise to a potential misunderstanding that they have different semantics.
The terms are also not defined, so their ordinary English language meanings seem to apply.
Suggest either:
- using one term throughout - I'd prefer "informative" with a statement that "statements that are not normative are referred to as informative" in the document conventions OR
- adding into the document conventions a statement "the terms non-normative and informative are used interchangeably"
I have heard push back against "informative", due to the fact that it can be read not only as a word contrasting with "normative", but also as a qualitative judgment about the section: "this section is informative", to some, feel like a claim that this section is interesting and brings relevant information. Just like after watching a documentary, you can say "oh, wow, that was very informative".
Using "not normative" or "non-normative" avoids that problem.
With that said, that's just a practice I (try to) follow because I've heard it bothers some people, but I don't care strongly myself. In any case, I support being consistent about this.
I certainly support consistency.
As a word, I like "informative" better than "non-normative". However, for purposes of W3C documents — i.e., for use in contrast with "normative" — I think "non-normative" is clearer.
The PR that addressed the Process-specific part of this phrasing has been merged. Reopening to give us time to deal with other text generated / inserted by Bikeshed as well (see https://github.com/speced/bikeshed/issues/3077)
This is an editorial concern and should be left to the editor's discretion. Doesn't feel like a good use of the group's time.
This is an editorial concern and should be left to the editor's discretion.
"Editor's discretion" can lead to both "informative" and "non-normative" being used in the same document, both in contrast to "normative". That leads to confusion, especially in readers who are not native to English.
I think a decision on this front is a reasonable thing to add to the Manual of Style. It might not make sense to keep/put in the Process.
The source of the document only uses "non-normative". There are two instances of the word "informative", and they are different, and don't mean "non-normative":
Each nomination should include a few informative paragraphs about the nominee.
and
The Council may also issue a Supplemental Confidential Council Report with a more restricted level of confidentiality than its main report when it believes that additional commentary on confidential aspects of the case would be informative.
I think it would be incorrect to change those to "non-normative".
There is one more instance of the word "informative" appearing in the rendered document: the bibliography generated by bikeshed separates "normative references" from "informative references". I would prefer if it said "non-normative references", and filed a bug on bikeshed accordingly (https://github.com/speced/bikeshed/issues/3077). Anybody is welcome to submit a PR to bikshed, but that is out of my control.
While I would prefer complete consistency, I think that saying that this one instance of the word "informative" as the title of an appendix "leads to confusion" is a strong overstatement.
Unless the Process CG wants to take a resolution that I should do something specific, I do no intend to do anything more on the topic, and support closing this issue.
I think that saying that this one instance of the word "informative" as the title of an appendix "leads to confusion" is a strong overstatement
Yes, I think this use of "informative" is fine, and "non-normative" would not make sense in its place.
This was addressed as much as it's going to be in Process 2025. The Process CG then decided to close during its 2025-10-08 meeting.