From rinehuls@access.digex.net Fri Aug 9 22:46:42 1996 Received: from access2.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10699 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 22:46:40 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01885 ; for ; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 16:46:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 16:46:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" X-Sender: rinehuls@access2.digex.net To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: Document SC22 N2237 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2237 August 1996 TITLE: Response to SC22 Comments on ISO/IEC Directives, Part 3, Third Edition SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 WORK ITEM: N/A STATUS: N/A CROSS REFERENCE: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: N/A ACTION: To SC22 Member Bodies, WG Conveners and HODs for information. Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Tel: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net ____________________________________________________________________________ From: Bob Follett, Chairman, JTC 1/SC22 Subject: Response to SC22 Comments on ISO/IEC DIrectives, Part 3, Third Edition About three months ago, I circulated a summary of changes to Part 3 of the ISO/IEC Directives which I had just become aware of (Document SC22 N2154). We had a very short time frame for response. I compiled comments from several of you into an informal response which was endorsed by the JTC1 Secretariat and sent to Geneva. The joint ISO/IEC working group on maintenance of the Directives met on 28-29 May to discuss the comments and produced a disposition of comments that is 102 pages long. Following is the disposition of the SC22 submitted comments: SC22 COMMENT: 1. The fourth listed change states: "notes integrated in the text and footnotes to the text are not numbered consecutively throughout the text but are numbered per numbered subdivision of text and per page respectively." This change is likely to cause significant problems for several reasons: a) Many word processing programs do not support numbering footnotes per page. b) Without word processing support, footnotes would have to be numbered manually. From a practical viewpoint, this is impossible since the pages are not determined until the end, and then will change when modifications are made. c) Pages will not be the same after translation to another language. Numbering by page appears to have similar problems to line numbering of text and should be rejected for the same reasons. d) As we progress to more on-line versions of documents, standards may be viewed on computers where printed page numbers are irrelevant. If printed, the varying paper sizes and local printing conventions will likely cause differences in page appearances even for standards written in the same language. ISO/IEC RESPONSE: Agreed. SC22 COMMENT: 2. The second listed change states: "it is no longer permissible to subdivide a standard into sections or chapters." Several of our standards currently have "sections" and we are unclear as to how this constraint will be interpreted with regard to these standards. It is also unclear what benefit is being derived from this change. ISO/IEC RESPONSE: The proposed change only removes duplication as the terms "clause" and "section" lead to the same result in terms of numerical structure. The proposed change leads to a simpler and more rational structure for standards, the term "clause" replacing the former "section". It is appreciated that this change will need clear explanation and good preparation before starting to write a standard. If there is real necessity, there is the possibility of breaking down standards into parts. It is also simpler for electronic processing and automatic numbering of texts. SC22 COMMENT: 3. The third listed change states: "annexes are presented in the order in which they are cited in the text ... " This appears to be an unnecessary constraint that will require reorganization of some documents for no apparent benefit. ISO/IEC RESPONSE: Not accepted. END OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Regards, Bob ______________________end of document SC22 N2237 ________________________