Re: [SpecGL Draft] A.1 GP In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

At 03:05 PM 8/10/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Le 06 août 2004, à 18:07, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>>  This was discussed and done on purpose -- put the most fundamental and 
>> important stuff up front, even if it overlapped stuff further into the 
>> body.  That in turn followed from refining your original outline into 
>> draft text.
>For now I have suppressed A.1 GP "In the conformance clause, define 
>how         normative language is expressed."
>to keep only C.2, we can still change the decision if needed. The content 
>is on the mailing list in this thread.

I think it should be discussed.

>This somehow solves also the issue I have raised about terminology

"500 Internal server error"

(For my taste, in agendas and email discussions, archive message pointers 
are preferable to these /mid/ things.)

However, as I recall, you wrote a message about the use of normative 
language in SpecGL, and the fact that SpecGL did not define its own 
normative language.  However, SpecGL does have the conventional boiler 
plate about RFC2119 (note -- if you read carefully, it doesn't actually 
claim that RFC2119 is the method of normative language that SpecGL uses; it 
only says, "if these words are used in upper case, then they have the 
RFC2119 normative meanings")

I don't see how the presence of the how-norm-lang-expressed GP in A.1 
versus in C.2 (or both) is related to this issue -- that SpecGL doesn't 
define its own normative language.


Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 21:53:07 UTC