Glenn, Keld, Ken, Yves, et al,
I have a question for all of you regarding this terminology debate. What is the goal
here? Are you trying to nail down precision in the terms for use in future
The reason I ask this is that I'm trying to understand the goal of the documents. I
have in the past assumed that they are written to explain the standards to the people
who need to implement them. Having attempted to read a few, I think my assumption to
Terminology precision to the degree being discussed here will not change the
readability of the standards documents for me. Simple, straightforward prose and
specific examples will.
The clarity of the writing can be damaged when trying to be precise. There is a
point of diminishing return when readability is sacrificed for precision. The less
readable a standard is, the more likely implementers won't be able to follow it.
Just an implementer's perspective on all this.
Eyes on the prize,
-- "Klaatu barada nikto" - TDtESS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT