Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

P1788/M0014.01: NO

I vote no.

I am concerned the current wording is too restrictive and may unnecessarily
limit the adoption or acceptance of 1788 into environments that would
otherwise be conforming.

Exact inf-sup, mid-rad, or mid-rad1-rad2 representations in the various
interchange formats (ala Motion 16) I can see is useful. But I think the
standard should otherwise be silent on the internal format used by an
implementation, except that inclusion isotonicity must be preserved. This
gives the widest latitude to implementers for innovation.

Nate Hayes
Sunfish Studio, LLC