> In article <72sfkc$6jl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   AllanW@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Also this is a note, and therefore non-normative.

In article <7319qe$ap8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  jim.hyslop@leitch.com wrote:
> I have seen several statements to that effect in these newsgroups - "if it's
> in a footnote, it doesn't count".  Please would someone tell me where in the
> Standard it states that footnotes are non-normative?  I don't believe it
> states that anywhere.
>
> I really would like a clarification on this.  After all, if they are
> non-normative, then what's the point in having them?

In CD2, we had:

  1.3  Implementation compliance                      [intro.compliance]

    6 In this International Standard, a term is italicized when it is  first
      defined.  In this International Standard, the examples, the notes, the
      footnotes, and the non-normative annexes are not part of the normative
      Standard.  Each example is introduced by "[Example:" and terminated by
      "]".  Each note is introduced  by  "[Note:"  and  terminated  by  "]".
      Examples and notes may be nested.

(( Would it have been a burden on the standard authors, if we had
   required that Examples and Notes did NOT nest? ))

and:

      17.2.1.1  Summary                              [lib.structure.summary]

    2 Paragraphs  labelled  ``Note(s):'' or ``Example(s):'' are informative,
      other paragraphs are normative.

Interestingly, this paragraph was dropped from the final standard. But we
still do have:

    1.5 Structure of this International Standard       [intro.structure]

    6   Throughout this International Standard, each example is
        introduced by "[Example:" and terminated by "]". Each note is
        introduced by "[Note:" and terminated by "]". Examples and
        notes may be nested.

(( Inexplicably, some notes end with "--end note]" and some examples end
   with "--end example]". CD2 also had this incongruity. But this does
   not contradict item 6 above if you consider "--end note" and
   "--end example" to be PART OF the note or example... ))

and we also still do have:

    17.3.1.1 Summary                             [lib.structure.summary]

    2   Paragraphs labelled "Note(s):" or "Example(s):" are informative,
        other paragraphs are normative.

--
AllanW@my-dejanews.com is a "Spam Magnet" -- never read.
Please reply in USENET only, sorry.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

AllanW@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> In article <7319qe$ap8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   jim.hyslop@leitch.com wrote:

> > Please would someone tell me where in the
> > Standard it states that footnotes are non-normative?  I don't believe it
> > states that anywhere.

> (( Would it have been a burden on the standard authors, if we had
>    required that Examples and Notes did NOT nest? ))

Probably as much a burden as writing SE/SE.
But then the reading comprehension might have suffered.


>       17.2.1.1  Summary                              [lib.structure.summary]
>
>     2 Paragraphs  labelled  ``Note(s):'' or ``Example(s):'' are informative,
>       other paragraphs are normative.
>
> Interestingly, this paragraph was dropped from the final standard. But we

(see my last point)


> still do have:
>
>     1.5 Structure of this International Standard       [intro.structure]
>
>     6   Throughout this International Standard, each example is
>         introduced by "[Example:" and terminated by "]". Each note is
>         introduced by "[Note:" and terminated by "]". Examples and
>         notes may be nested.

At least that "non-normative annices" stuff went.


> (( Inexplicably, some notes end with "--end note]" and some examples end
>    with "--end example]". CD2 also had this incongruity. But this does
>    not contradict item 6 above if you consider "--end note" and
>    "--end example" to be PART OF the note or example... ))

Fair enough.


> and we also still do have:
>
>     17.3.1.1 Summary                             [lib.structure.summary]
>
>     2   Paragraphs labelled "Note(s):" or "Example(s):" are informative,
>         other paragraphs are normative.

Given the identical section headings, it looks like
[lib.structure.summary]
merely got moved from 17.2.1.1 to 17.3.1.1

--

Chris Kuan, BHP Information Technology
Concatenate for email: mr gazpacho @ hotmail . com
Phone : +61 2 4275 5555  Fax : +61 2 4275 5547

"A Design Pattern is something that got left out of the language"
- Richard O'Keefe



[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]