<font size=2 face="sans-serif">Comments:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Section 3: Should we say in normative
references that IEEE 754-2008 *OR* ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011? (because we
say the following are indispensable, implying the list of documents are
all uniquely required)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Typos:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Section 5, Suggested change 1:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">__STDC_IEC_60559__ -> __STDC_IEC_559__</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">7.2 line 2:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All encodings In IEC 60559 -> All
encodings in IEC 60559</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">F.3 point 9, 10 are split when they
should be together (and the last sentence of 9 is a footnote)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">F.3 point 11: isgreater is not in *bold*</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">F.3 point 12: FE_INEXACT is not in *bold*
(seems to apply to the first item in any list in parenthesis so later ones
will not be listed)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Section 10: p is the precision of the
widest support*ed* IEC 60559 binary format.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
<br>
Rajan Bhakta<br>
z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect<br>
ISO C Standards Representative for Canada<br>
C Compiler Development<br>
Contact: rbhakta@ca.ibm.com, Rajan Bhakta/Toronto/IBM<br>
Telephone: (905) 413-3995</font>
<br>