Re: RQ-28, RQ-30: Scientific notation and negative fractionDigits for decimal

I agree that RQ-31 will naturally absorb the earlier two -- however, the
need for the first two (and the original postings for them) was not included
in the third as the other two were already on record.   Hence if the group
closed the first two, the rationale for them could be interpreted as being
rejected/discounted.

I'd suggest keeping all three on the books in some way that makes it clear
they are part of the same requirement.  The alternative would be to try and
merge them into a new Requirement document that would seem to be unnecessary
paperwork :-).

Mike Cowlishaw