Re: REMOVAL OF ITEM 3.1 BECAUSE IT IS COVERED BY A 1.3 AND 4.1

As a reminder, the alternative proposal (from Avi, Lisa et al.) is to retain checkpoint 3.1,
but to confine the scope of checkpoint 4.1 to choice of language, by
rewriting it as follows:

Use plain language.

Issues of structure would then be outside the scope of checkpoint 4.1,
but would be completely covered by a combination of checkpoints 1.3,
1.4 and 3.1. This alternative proposal would entail the retention of
checkpoint 3.1.

In saying this, I am not backing either option, but instead, simply
making clear (in case there were any confusion) that both alternatives
are still open and that, so far, no choice has been made between them.

Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 01:44:23 UTC