Be consistent with terms "non-normative" and "informative"

[nigelmegitt]

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:

1. 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
2. adding into the document conventions a statement "the terms non-normative and informative are used interchangeably"

[frivoal]

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.

[TallTed]

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.

[frivoal]

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 speced/bikeshed#3077)