Re: Motion P1788/M0005.02_Table_of_operations vote : NO
P1788, Ulrich, Bo
On 8 Sep 2009, at 21:13, Michel Hack wrote:
I vote NO on Motion 5 -- table of operations.
I believe with several others that a semantic definition of operations
in the style of the Vienna proposal is a better way to proceed.
I would welcome the explicit definitions in an appendix, if we can
away with that. (We had a similar discussion in P754R about the late
Dave James' tabular definitions.)
It was always my belief -- I have said this in a couple of emails --
that the proper place for the Motion 5 tables is in a non-normative
appendix, for the reasons stated by Michel.
If
- the motion could be amended at this late stage to include a
statement to that effect,
- and this would persuade some NO-voters to change to YES,
I (in capacity as Tech Editor as well as seconder of this motion)
would welcome this.
Chair: is this allowed? Ulrich, Bo: would you support this?
John