From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Tue Jun 19 05:22:33 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:20:37 -0400 From: "Mason, James David (MXM)" Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NoteExampleConfusion-Durusau-3 In-reply-to: <200706182101.l5IL1OQg236487@jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by midtown.nycx.com id l5JCM0ne028350 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: INCITS-V1: NoteExampleConfusion-Durusau-3 Thread-index: Acex6/XZvBhlPCH1TKa3hj05dBL/KwAf/fEA X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2007 12:20:39.0084 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F41D6C0:01C7B26C] As I just said in connection to another of Jon's observations, the submitters obviously did not read -- and edit -- this submission into a consistent whole. If it were coming through the normal ISO process, I'd say it was in the state of a Working Draft and not yet ready for registration as a Committee Draft and assignment of a number. Jim Mason -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of jon.bosak@sun.com Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:01 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: INCITS-V1: NoteExampleConfusion-Durusau-3 Responding to Patrick's repeated requests that we try to get some of this discussion done by mail, I am (at last) trying to catch up with his comments. I regret that other work has prevented me from getting to this till now. In his comment Durusau-3, Patrick notes that "there appears to be no consistent editorial principle applied to distinguish between notes and examples in the text. Text that looks like examples appear in notes and what are probably notes appear in examples with no distinguishable principle for the use of one over the other." I agree with Patrick that this confusion is inappropriate in an ISO Standard. It should be corrected before the specification is given that status. Since resolution of this issue is straightforward (if tedious), there should be no delay in assenting to Patrick's proposed change. Jon