Re: Why (IMO) you should vote Yes to Motion 14.02
Zitat von Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Well, as I already mailed, this is probably nitpicking. I think
the
actual wording doesn't prevent you from conforming with
mid-rad---whether it's intended or not. The introduction of
requirements comes entirely from the represented level 2 datum.
The
motion says "if you accept to work with a certain level 2 datum
don't
approximate it in storage". But we have to sort out the question
of
supported formats to have a solid wording of course.
Cheers,
Christian
Christian is neither nitpicking nor wrong about the
intention
of the motion.
The "approximation in storage" IS the issue.
Probably not. As Nate answered to my email, at least he is not
objecting against avoiding the loss of accuracy here (OMG double
negative... I hope you get what I mean). The other way around: he
doesn't want to introduce a loss of accuracy there. He would be
perfectly fine with having a level 2 datum that allows to be
represented without loss in a level 3 representation. That's what I
wanted to illustrate. I have the impression that different parties in
this discussion are arguing on different levels.
Therefor I think your move to another definition of the level 2 datums
should have merit.
As for sorting out the nature of supported formats, I think
we would all be well served to ignore the nature of those
formats entirely in the normative text in favor of
describing
their behavior only. If we confined all mention of inf-sup
or
mid-rad to informative notes & confined our normative text
to
making restrictions on how they shall behave, it would be a
better standard for it.
That's not a bad approach now that I think about it.
That was the bad wording of a nonnative =). I meant sorting out the
level 2 datum issue.
Cheers,
Christian