[sc34wg3] Some general comments on the RM (branching from the
thread Re: [s c34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO 13250)
Mason, James David (MXM)
Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:32:44 -0400
This is part of what I was getting at when I said that normative stuff
shouldn't have to depend on Clause 2. Unfortunately, the ISO Directives call
for Clause 2, and we're stuck with that. No need to do like Charles and take
your revenge there, however.
From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Some general comments on the RM (branching from
the thread Re: [s c34wg3] The Norwegian National Body position on ISO
* Patrick Durusau
| I have no strong feeling about it one way or the other but is there
| a consensus on either of the options Jim suggests?
This may not be the response you are looking for, but generally I feel
that the ISO style of definitions is a problem more than a solution.
Definitions out of context are basically a pain. The closer you can
put these definitions to where the user is likely to actually want
them, the better it will be.
So I would suggest adding them to the text at the point of first use.
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
sc34wg3 mailing list