Subject: Re: DIS 14755

From: "Alain LaBont/e'/" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 12:17:19 -0400

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