RE: revised 754R draft

["James, David V" <david.v.james@xxxxxxxxx>]

David,

> > by putting the associated operations 
> > together in one section called logbformat operations.

IMHO, these groupings are getting somewhat overloaded.
I this its preferred to clearly identify the feature
when defining each operation, preferably with tables.

With all of the tables split into distinct "features",
its become very hard to find and understand what is
done and how it is done.

Not a formal motion (yet);
FYI: When we have the converted text, I will key my
motions off of that. While this will delay motions
slightly, the auto-compare feature seems valuable.

Cheers,
DVJ



-----Original Message-----
From: stds-754@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-754@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David
Hough 754R work
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:12 PM
To: stds-754@xxxxxxxx; stds-754@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: revised 754R draft

The result of today's style review is at

http://754r.ucbtest.org/drafts/

for review by persons attending.    With any corrections turned up
tomorrow, it will be the basis for David James to implement motions #37
and #48.

The most general point of interest is that I attempted to clarify the
notions around "integral" formats by putting the associated operations 
together in one section called logbformat operations.