Re: request for fix of draft

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

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 08:27:29 UTC