Re: Reconciling ConvolverNode's output channel dependencies with the mixing rules in the spec

Chris,


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:

>
> In other words, I'm very clear that the general case is *not* expected to
> be implemented, and I then go on to add that the general case can be
> handled with a merger node.
>


Just to be clear, is that meant to be
   "is *not* expected to be implemented"
as written, or is that meant to be
    "is expected *not* to be implemented"?

Because to me the first means it is not required, but is allowed, while the
second means it is forbidden.

If it is allowed, the behavior needs to be specified.
If it is forbidden, it needs to be clear that it is forbidden.

To me it is not clear that it is forbidden.

Sincerely,
   Frederick