RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 4

Jerome,

The specific point is that the previous IEEE SystemC standard did not have
a bibliography, just a minimal set of references. The bibliography drifted
in by default from the OSCI TLM-2.0 LRM (which had not been through the
rigors of the IEEE standardization process). So the line of least
resistance is simply to drop the TLM-2.0 bibliography.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to making any such change, if
that's what people want.

John A

From:
Jerome CORNET <jerome.cornet@st.com>
To:
"john.aynsley@doulos.com" <john.aynsley@doulos.com>
Cc:
Stuart Swan <stuart@cadence.com>, "systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org"
<systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org>
Date:
05/05/2011 08:51
Subject:
RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 4

From: john.aynsley@doulos.com [mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Jerome CORNET
Cc: Stuart Swan; systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion - Part 4
 
Jerome,

I've double-checked the wording of the IEEE criticism. The specific thing
they objected to was the use of the term "Bibliography". They said "
As per IEEE style the Bibliography is reserved for an Informative Annex.
It should either be the first or the last Annex and it should " (sic)

We might be able to reinsert the items under "References" if there was a
consensus to do so, but I would have to check the rules.

John,
 
so the problem is only with the term ?Bibliography?. I don?t understand
why we should get a consensus to add something that
was already there and consensually agreed with by participants of the wg.
To me this is just an editorial problem: just add a section named
differently.
 
Am I missing something?
 
Jerome
 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.