Re: Arguments for supporting Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad
> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:41:10 +0200
> From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Arguments for supporting Motion P1788/0023.01:NoMidRad
>
> Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> >
> > The motion has been put forward by Arnold Neumaier (through Dan Zuras),
>
> I didn't forward the motion. I only suggested a wording for this motion,
> which was put forward by Dan Zuras.
>
>
> > and has
> > been seconded by Nate Hayes. The discussion period therefore begins,
> > and will
> > continue until after the end of Tuesday, October 5.
> >
> > Juergen: Please post this information on the web page.
> >
> > William: Please record this in the minutes.
> >
> > The motion is as follows:
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The standard shall not support a midrad interval format or
> > nonstandard intervals, beyond providing conversion support,
> > approximately to the extent specified in the Vienna Proposal.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> . . .
It appears both here & in a private email that Arnold
really means to bind us rather than the user here.
It is his interpretation that "The standard shall not
support midrad..." means "The 1788 standards committee
shall not support midrad...".
Further that while the implementer is not restricted
from supporting midrads, it should be known that to
do so goes outside the standard risking what was once
called Caveat Machinator (let the builder of clever
machines beware).
So be it.
I cannot think of any further textual change to the
motion that embodies this. Let that be the intended
interpretation for the motion as it stands.
I accept that as a 'friendly interpretation'.
Comments, anyone?
Dan