all authoring guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are non-normative

however, we have a few instances of notes that contain MAY, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MUST.

• https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#dom-pointerevent-pointerid > Move elements of pointerId informative note to normative text #411
• first note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#dom-pointerevent-getpredictedevents > Make "Converting..." section normative #410
• second note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#coalesced-events > Move first part of the note about dispatched event order into normative text #412
• second note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#mapping-for-devices-that-do-not-support-hover > Make note about UAs not firing compat events if they support touch events normative #413
• note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#chorded-button-interactions - make the note normative (about compat events and how the button/buttons should follow UIEVENTS) > Make note about buttons/buttons and compat events normative #414
• note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#firing-events-using-the-pointerevent-interface ... contains "may" and "should", but not sure how strongly this is intended. they're not capitalised, but may give impression of being MAY and SHOULD in normative sense? more fundamentally, are we ok with not normatively defining if boundary events are fired or not? Remove should from boundary events note and move to normative must. #419
• first note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#the-touch-action-css-property right at the end contains a "should" - i'd reword that to avoid the word altogether > Remove may/should from note about complex gestures #415
• first note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#compatibility-mapping-with-mouse-events is full of "may" and "should" - is it clear enough these are not used in the MAY and SHOULD sense? Make fact that click/contextmenu are not compat mouse events normative #418
• second note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#dfn-active-pointer - i'd make the note normative text (and change "id" to "pointerId"). however, this is in the glossary, which by definition is non-normative. should this be moved somewhere else / into the normative text/interface definition? also, what does that second note actually try to say? Remove redundant (and now wrong) note about active pointer id #417
• note in https://w3c.github.io/pointerevents/#attributes-and-default-actions "the values of those (inherited) attributes in PointerEvents must be null to encourage the use of the standardized alternates" - suggest rewording this, as it's more of a strong suggestion than something we can/want to normatively demand > Reword legacy properties note to remove the "must" #416

We can either decide that these can be changed into "soft" requirements (and either lowercase or avoid those BCP14 keywords), or we must turn those notes into normative prose.