Andrea Vine writes:
> 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
Yes, that was at least my intention.
> 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
> be incorrect.
> 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.
Well, there may be a difference between what is discussed beforehand
between experts discussing terminology, and then how it
is expressed in the actual standards text.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT