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

At 06:56 PM 8/10/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

>This is the same :p It's only that the redirection seems to be broken now.

In my experience, the redirect is often undefined for a few hours after the 
message is archived.  (Aside from being broken occasionally, as happened 
this time.)

>I'm using these references... when I'm offline and do not have access to 
>the Web :)

That's sensible.

>>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.
>No it was not the issue. The issue was about the placeholder of normative 
>language definition. Is it in a section which has to be the conformance 
>clause or in can it be only in a section which is Terminology.

Okay, I misunderstood the issue.

I agree with the suggestion that it can be linked from the Conformance 
Clause.  In fact, I think that applies to almost any required content -- it 
can be in the CC or linked from there.  We went 'round with this in 
SpecHeavy, and I think we decided that a link to content almost always 
satisfied our intent for a rule, "include ...blah...".

>Dom said [2] that it was not necessary to force people to put it in the 
>conformance clause. but a reminder or a link from the conformance clause 
>to the terminology section should be encouraged.

I agree.


Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2004 15:48:20 UTC