Re: request for fix of draft

I am more concerned by programmers that want to take a short cut or that 
do not understand English correctly, later defended by teams of lawyers.
Because that sentence contains a MUST, then you /must /make sure it is 
unambiguous :p .
Nothing is clear to a /<pick your preferred nationality for non-English 
speakers>/ engineer relying on a translation by a non-technical interpreter.
And you did not answer my question on multiple matches: if there are 
multiple matches, it is the first, last or any that gets picked ?
Best regards
JC

On 4/6/12 18:27 , Greg Billock wrote:
> Perhaps there's a meta-problem here. Is it not clear in this section
> that "the Service page" means "the one we're currently examining in
> the matching algorithm"?
>
> What this section is nailing down is what services can expect from
> intents that are delivered to them. The answer is "ones that match
> your declarations" and the algorithm defines what "match" means.
>
> I'm definitely eager to lawyer-proof the spec, but I thought this part
> already was, so I don't want to make a fix and miss the bigger bug.
> :-)
>
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd
> <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>  wrote:
>> On 30/5/12 20:21 , Greg Billock wrote:
>>> :-) How about "... the Intent must be delivered to the Service page."
>> JCD: You are obviously not evil enough to see how your text could be
>> distorted by devious readers.
>> There is one service page for each of the registered intent, and you are not
>> saying that the Intent must be delivered to one of the matches.
>> So technically, if there is a match, the Intent could be delivered to any of
>> the non-matching service page, and you cannot really say that implementation
>> is non-conformant...
>>
>> And then again, what happens for multiple matches ?
>> If multiple matches can happen, then what ?
>> Thanks
>> JC
>>
>>> (Thanks for the comments; I've changed the other one locally; I'll
>>> upload it along with this and other corrections and fixes soon.)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd
>>> <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>    wrote:
>>>> Section 4.2, item 4, last sentence:
>>>>
>>>> "If any satisfying match is found, the Intent must be delivered."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be so picky, but I find this conciseness shocking. Please make
>>>> the
>>>> target of delivery explicit, even though it should be obvious. Something
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>>> "If any satisfying match is found, the Intent must be delivered to the
>>>> Service page of the matching intent element."
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> JC
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> JC Dufourd
>>>> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
>>>> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
>>>> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
>>>> Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
>>>> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
>>
>>
>> --
>> JC Dufourd
>> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
>> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
>> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
>> Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
>> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
>>


-- 
JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144