Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NoteExampleConfusion-Durusau-3

From: "Mason, James David (MXM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:20:37 -0400

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: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
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