New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Some Notes should be presented as a part of specification #176

Closed
ToshiKurokawa opened this Issue Nov 15, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@ToshiKurokawa

ToshiKurokawa commented Nov 15, 2015

[JP22] This is not a factual issue but a meta issue for the style of standard document:
Many contents of the NOTE for the Language seems to be specifications expressed in English rather than just an informative note. I’ve got that from notes in 13.3.2.4, 13.7.5.9, 13.10, 13.11. It looks that a subclause entitled “Summary” might be useful to guide the readers of this document.

@bterlson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bterlson

bterlson Dec 8, 2015

Member

Many contents of the NOTE for the Language seems to be specifications expressed in English rather than just an informative note.

@ToshiKurokawa In general, notes will frequently restate what the specification text says for a specific case especially when that case has a history of being misinterpreted. I believe the rationale here is for these to be notes so we don't create any doubt about what the normative requirements actually are, and to avoid bugs cropping up in implementations due to a conflict in normative semantics that are potentially spread out around the spec.

Changing this convention at this point would require stronger motivation than what is presently given. I'm closing this for now, but please re-open if you would like to discuss further (and I will try not to miss this issue for so long next time :))

Member

bterlson commented Dec 8, 2015

Many contents of the NOTE for the Language seems to be specifications expressed in English rather than just an informative note.

@ToshiKurokawa In general, notes will frequently restate what the specification text says for a specific case especially when that case has a history of being misinterpreted. I believe the rationale here is for these to be notes so we don't create any doubt about what the normative requirements actually are, and to avoid bugs cropping up in implementations due to a conflict in normative semantics that are potentially spread out around the spec.

Changing this convention at this point would require stronger motivation than what is presently given. I'm closing this for now, but please re-open if you would like to discuss further (and I will try not to miss this issue for so long next time :))

@bterlson bterlson closed this Dec 8, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment