"1.6 Editing Conventions currently reads in part:

• • • • • 
          All sections explicitly noted as examples are informational and SHALL NOT be considered normative.

But at 4.2.1.1 bool, I find:

• • • • • 
          An example:

<bool val=""true""/>

Clearly an example but not excluded from normative text by 1.6.

Consider whether examples should be typographically distinct with language in 1.6 saying that all examples are non-normative.

I count 19 uses of the phrase ""an example"" where an actual example follows. (Excluding use of ""an example"" in prose.)"