-
Type: Bug
-
Status: New
-
Priority: Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: Public reviews
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:
Normative vs. Non-Normative text
-
Proposal:
Documentation Conventions reads:
*****
The documentation convention followed in the major normative clauses of this specification details the normative prescriptive rules in the first subclause and describe the non-normative UBL 2.13 Documents, libraries, components and extensions application of those rules in the second subclause. Where possible, subsequent sub-subclauses under each subclause correspond the NDR rules with the UBL 2.1 application of those rules.
*****
Just using the heads from section 3, I interpret those conventions to mean:
*****
3 Documents, libraries, components and extensions [No rules provided for main clauses, that I see anyway.]
3.1 Rules for structuring information bundles [Normative, including any subclauses]
3.2 UBL structuring of information bundles (Non-Normative) [Non-normative and labeled as non-normative]
*****
The main clauses not having normative or non-normative status is a serious problem. I won't file a separate issue but note all the main clauses are also hanging paragraphs in the ISO sense. Rather than relying on readers to remember the subclause 1 versus subclause 2 distinction, wouldn't it be simpler to label the main subclauses?