From alb@sct.gouv.qc.ca Thu Aug 1 18:15:24 1996 Received: from socrate.riq.qc.ca (socrate.riq.qc.ca [199.84.128.1]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA19677 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:15:15 +0200 Received: from riq2592 (riq-128-34.riq.qc.ca) by socrate.riq.qc.ca (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA20342; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:17:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:17:19 -0400 Message-Id: <9608011617.AA20342@socrate.riq.qc.ca> X-Sender: alb@riq.qc.ca X-Mailer: Eudora Light pour Windows Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: (Liste de destinataire supprim\ie) From: "Alain LaBont/e'/" Subject: Re: DIS 14755 At 11:47 1996-8-1 -0400, Johan van Wingen wrote (on ISO10646 public list) : >The document number of ISO/IEC DIS 14755 is SC18 N 5385. Some people >asked for it last week. >Looking through the text I wondered why it could have become a DIS >before checking conformance toISO Directives, Part 3. In clause 2, >Normative References, the usual first paragrach is missing, like it >is inclause 3, Definitions. The definitions are not numbered. >I tell this because I received comments like these, being Project >Editor, after having produced the CD. The numbering of definitions is a very bad practice which I denounced directly to ITTF recently. According to the directives, the definitions also have to be in alphabetic order. For other languages versions and the usage of those who cross-reference different languages' versions, the alphabetic sorting of definitions will typically not give the same order in different languages, so how should we then number definitions to respect the other requirement of directives that all paragraphs be structurally equivalent in all languages? When I wrote this I immediately got support from AFNOR which always has this problem with numbered definitions. Would English-speakers accept such a presentation: 5 a 2 b 4 c 3 d 1 e ? What is the use of numbering in such a case? If I had respected all requirements that's what I would have done, as the original is in French... It simply makes no sense, and I would never do it, whether in English or in French, unless I was threatened of being fined by a police system. When rules make no sense, the hell with rules. Rules are made to guide hesitant people, not to misguide. THose who make rules also have the right to err, and they most of teh time understnad problems and correct rules when they make no sense, unless it is a religious matter. Thanks for the other comments though which seem right. That was up to ITTF to check, it is also their responsibility and in SC18/WG9 we have been told many times, when making such comments (I did myself issue some comments and I always got the same kind of answer), that ITTF would add te correct boiler plates, which was OK to assume.... ANSI signed to the effect that it was allright according to directives. I think that the final publication will be more carefully checked, at Genève this time, and they usually do a good job. That said, nobody can see everything at once. A DIS may have such defects, that's the reason why there is this spet before a full-fledged international standard. At this point only editorial comments of such a nature should chnage the DIS for publication as an IS. It was technically approved. Anyway this is really a matter of consistent style. Every implementer will have no problem with the current way it is written now. Another issue: the original French version was not sent with teh DIS ballot, it should have been... there was a resolution to this effect, but according to ISO directives, it should have gone without saying. It has not... even if specifically stated. Alain LaBonté Editor, ISO/IEC 14755 bcc SC18WG9 list