Resend Comments on draft 1.1.6.4 after today's style review

[Jeffrey Kidder <jkidder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Here is a resend of my comments on the glossary edited for some  
constructive feedback from Mike (thanks).
Don't put much weight into the page numbers as things have shifted....

A pass on the Glossary:

3.2.6 (page 12) computational operation; Add "capable of"
	Should be "An operation producing a floating-point result or capable  
of signaling a floating point exception."
        
3.2.7 (page 12) correct rounding: Add operations
	"An operation is said to be correctly rounded if all finite results  
are correctly rounded."

3.2.14 (page 14) extended format: should refer to section where  
"extends a format" is defined
        "(see 5.6)"

3.2.15 (page 14) external decimal character sequence: are we really  
more capable at reading ascii than a computer?
	"... intended to be interpreted more readily by humans, ..." strike  
out "than by computers".
	This isn't a contest. The goal is to make them more readable to  
humans than reading hex dumps to humans.

3.2.16 (page 14) floating point number: does Inf have an exponent?
	"A floating point number is one of +/-0, +/-Infinity, NaN, or a  
finite number which can be represented with a sign, exponent, and  
significand within the limits specified by the format."

3.2.17 (page 14) format: what happens to a format that isn't conforming?
        strike out ", implemented in conformance with this standard"

3.2.23 (page 14) NaN: could we bold "Not a Number", "Quiet NaN", and  
"Signaling NaN"?
	Also missing an "a": should be "a symbolic entity encoded in a  
floating-point format."
        
3.2.28 (page 15) quantum: what about NaN and Inf?
        Add "see 7.3.2 for treatment of NaN and Infinities".

3.2.32 (page 15) signal: a long way to look for what default modifies...
        "by invoking the default handling"

3.2.38 (page 15) user: what are we?
        This uses "person" and 3.2.15 used "humans". Maybe this is fine....

Missing: Do we need a definition of "Program text"?
        It is used in three places.

5.3 (page): Sets of representable entities: what happened to -0?
	Somewhere along the way we lost the clear specification that -0 is a  
distinct floating point number from +0.
	After "These are the only entities provided." add "Note that -0 is a  
distinct floating point number from +0."

Cheers,

Jeff