[Cfp-interest] Comments on Introductory parts of Part 1 (and others?)

[Willem Wakker]

Jim,

The conformance section of a IS/TS should specify how a conforming
implementation can conform (and nothing more); usually/often this
is expressed as '... shall conform to the requirements specified in
clauses 5-17 of this Technical Specification' or something similar.
So the section is used to identify the requirements and how to
treat them.

The 'Suggested change to C11' that is currently in section 2 is just
one of the requirements and has nothing to do with the overall
conformance (which is the purpose of section 2); it is there only
because it happens to modify the conformance section (section 2)
of the C standard.

So, the overall conformance text and the specific 'Suggested change'
are totally different things and do not belong in the same section
of the TS.

- Willem

On 26-2-2013 1:23, Jim Thomas wrote:
> Willem, thank you for the review and comments. Please see below.
>
> -Jim
>
> On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Willem Wakker <willemw at ace.nl> wrote:
>
>> Some quick comments:
>> - in part 1 (and also in the other parts) the C standard is
>> sometimes referred to as 'IEC 9899:2011'; this should be
>> 'ISO/IEC 9899:2011'.
> Ok. (The Normative references and Bibliography in the TS already are as you suggest.) This raises a question about the pervasive use IEC 60559, short for ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559, not only in the TS but also in the C standard.
>
> The draft introductions also have IEC Technical Report 24732:2008, which is ISO/IEC Technical Report 24732:2009.
>
>> - the notion 'Suggested changes to C11' when used in running
>> text sometime make the running text look strange or difficult
>> to parse.
>> Suggested change: in clause 2
>>     a) It meets the requirements for a conforming implementation
>>        of C11 with all the 'Suggested changes to C11', as
>>        specified in Part 1 of this Technical Specification; and
> Yes, this is clearer.
>
>> - there is some confusion in the Conformance section: it now
>> contains a suggested change to C11; that should not be there.
> Hmm. The section contains a specification for Part 1 conformance which entails a (suggested) change to the specification for C11 conformance. Why is the current placement inappropriate or confusing?
>
>> I suggest the following changes:
>> a- make a new clause 5 header with title 'Changes to main body
>>     of C11';
>>
>> b- make a new clause 5.1 header with title 'Conformance' and
>>     move the current 'Suggested change to C11' from clause 2 to
>>     this new clause
>>
>> c- rename the current clause 5 to clause 5.2 Predefined macros
>>
>> - I do not like the use of the notion 'Part 1 of this Technical
>> Specification'. I am more inclined to use 'This part of Technical
>> Specification 0000:20xx'. Reason: 'this part' is the thing you
>> have in your hand, 'this TS' is a wider thing that you do not
>> have in your hand.
> Good point. Does anyone see a problem with using the words Willem suggests?
>
>> Probably similar changes need to be made to the other parts as well.
>>
>> - Willem Wakker
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Willem Wakker, ACE Consulting bv,
>> De Ruyterkade 113, 1011 AB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
>> Tel: +31 20 6646416, Mob: +31 625 026561, Fax: +31 20 6750389,
>> mailto:willemw at ace.nl, http://www.ace.nl.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfp-interest mailing list
>> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
>> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest
>
>


-- 
Willem Wakker, ACE Consulting bv,
De Ruyterkade 113, 1011 AB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tel: +31 20 6646416, Mob: +31 625 026561, Fax: +31 20 6750389,
mailto:willemw at ace.nl, http://www.ace.nl.