Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: Wier - Part 1, Section 2.6 "Interoperability Guidelines"

From: Stephen Peront <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:20:42 -0400

Sorry for the incomplete sentence below, it is meant to say:

Regarding the following comment submitted by Rob:

-Stephen

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Peront
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: INCITS-V1: Wier - Part 1, Section 2.6 "Interoperability Guidelines"

Hi Team.

Regarding the following comment submitted by:

MB1

Clause No./

Subclause No./

Annex

(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/

Figure/Table/

Note

(e.g. Table 1)

Type

of

comment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB

Proposed change by the MB

Secretariat observations

on each comment submitted

US

Part 1,

Section 2.6

"Interoperabilit

y Guidelines"

-

ed

The use of the word "element" is ambiguous. Is this to

mean XML elements (but not attributes, character

content, etc.)? Or does this mean an element of the

Standard, in the usage of ISO Directives, Part 2?

Clarify the use of the word "element" perhaps by

saying "XML element" if that is what is meant.

2007-05-14: Submitted by

Rob Weir as #1-027

2007-05-29: Discussed

during meeting. Comment as

is.

I think the point of using the word element here is to be purposely
ambiguous; which would imply referring to any element of this Standard (not
XML element). I recommend that if we are going to comment on this that we
change the "Proposed changed by the MB" to the following text:

Define the word "element" so as to clarify its use in Part 1, Section 2.6,
List Item #1, Lines 3-5.

Have an awesome day!

Cheers,

-Stephen