Comments on IR votes

Folks,

Following are comments received on IRs voted upon by VASG, along with my
suggestions for how to respond.

IR2000, Aynsley, Affirmative: 

  As an aside, if the context-free grammar says that 
  a deferred constant belongs in a package declaration, is that not 
  sufficient? Is it really appropriate to say explicitly that it is an 
  *error* for the declaration to appear anywhere else?

My suggestion: Since the grammar doesn't encapsulate the requirement, a rule
in the normative text is needed.  Hence, no change in response to the
comment is needed.

IR2020, McNamara, Negative:

  Suggest we add a note

My suggestion: That we change the recommendation for future revisions to add
a note to the effect that an assertion statement in which a semicolon is
inadvertently inserted between the condition and the "report" keyword is
interpreted as an assertion statement followed by a report statement, and is
not detected as an error.  The IR should then be recirculated for VASG
approval.

IR2029, Myers, Negative:

  I'm concerned about having a "TBD" for the
  2002 rev spec, but then giving changes
  for the 200x spec (is this correct? or are the
  changes for the 1993 spec?)

My suggestion: I think the TBD for our recommentation for 1076-2002 was an
oversight on our part.  I suggest we change this to "No change" and
recirculate.

2048: Myers, Affirmative:

  Question - Would it have been better to
  have separated these out into individual
  issues?  Could get confusing with how to
  vote on the responses in this situation.

My suggestion: Voters could have called for separate votes on each issue,
but none did.  Votes are interpreted as approving the entire collection of
issues.  No need to revisit this.

2053:

At the time of call for vote, the recommendations sections said TBD.  The
intention was to recommend that the current revision be interpreted as
though the corrections were made and that the next revision implement the
corrections.  The ISAC agreed upon that recommendation, but it evidently
missed being written into the document.  I corrected the IR, but indicated
that I would disregard votes on this IR and include the corrected IR in the
next round.  I suggest we follow this course of action.

2059, Vachoux, Negative (infomational vote):

  I do not agree with the proposed ISAC recommendation for future revisions
  as it is stated in the IR:

  In 13.1, after list item f), insert the following:

   For each uppercase letter except ß, there is a corresponding
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Maybe I do not understand this correctly, but I would rather say:
   For each lowercase letter except ß and ÿ, there is a
   corresponding uppercase letter.

   lowercase letter; and for each lowercase letter except ÿ, there is a
   corresponding uppercase letter.  The pairs of corresponding
   uppercase and lowercase letters are:

     A  a    B  b    C  c    D  d    E  e    F  f    G  g

     H  h    I  i    J  i    K  k    L  l    M  m    N  n

     O  o    P  p    Q  q    R  r    S  s    T  t    U  u

     V  v    W  w    X  x    Y  y    Z  z    À  à    Á  á

     Â  â    Ã  ã    Ä  ä    Å  å    Æ  æ    Ç  ç    È  è

     É  é    Ê  ê    Ë  ë    Ì  ì    Í  í    Î  î    Ï  ï

     Ð  ð    Ñ  ñ    Ò  ò    Ó  ó    Ô  ô    Õ  õ    Ö  ö

     Ø  ø    Ù  ù    Ú  ú    Û  û    Ü  ü    Ý  ý    Þ  þ

My suggestion: Alain is correct that ß is a lowercase letter.  Please pardon
my ethnocentricity.  I suggest we correct the recommendation as Alain
suggests and recirculate.


Chuck, would you like to dispose of this by an email vote, or shall we wait
until our next telecon?  Thanks.

Cheers,

PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106