{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96","id":159524192,"number":96,"title":"normative-optional reprentation","user":{"login":"caridy","id":38969,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/38969?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy","html_url":"https://github.com/caridy","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/caridy/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2016-06-09T22:37:50Z","updated_at":"2016-08-25T01:47:04Z","closed_at":null,"body":"At TC39, there was consensus that normative-optional can be denoted by putting a box around the optional parts, rather than out-of-line as in Annex B, as long a the denotation of normative-optional was the same.\r\n\r\n@bterlson what's the recommendation for such construction? should we add something to ecmarkup?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/comments/242259502","html_url":"https://github.com/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96#issuecomment-242259502","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bterlson/ecmarkup/issues/96","id":242259502,"user":{"login":"bterlson","id":11236,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11236?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson","html_url":"https://github.com/bterlson","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bterlson/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-08-25T01:47:04Z","updated_at":"2016-08-25T01:47:04Z","body":"@littledan sorry I missed your ping. I didn't realize this was blocking work :(\r\n\r\nCurrently we have emu-annex which is non-normative by default and optionally normative using a `normative` attribute. I suppose we can allow a range of values for this attribute: \"\" is default, \"true\" is normative, \"false\" is non-normative, and \"optional\" is normative-optional.\r\n\r\nNext question is how to display it. I would propose that we display either \"non-normative\" or \"normative-optional\" under the section headers (normative would be assumed otherwise). Thoughts?\r\n\r\nWe should also probably describe what these concepts mean in a separate clause in 262..."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"bterlson"}}