Re: request for fix of draft

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd
<jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
> 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 .

:-) Agreed. What would make a better wording here?

> 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 ?

With our current proposal, it doesn't matter -- any match will cause
delivery by an identical means. What this probably means for UAs is
that they short-circuit and once they find a match, there's no need to
check any more. But if they want to look through all of them, that's
fine and I think shouldn't be constrained in the spec.

I want to make sure there isn't a larger bug, where the whole purpose
of the section is unclear. Is the above not spelled out enough?

>
> 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

Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 17:17:39 UTC