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

RE: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES

To: "'John Pryce'" <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
From: "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:39:36 -0700
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivered-to: mhonarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <B2336E36-C260-46AE-9AB4-D151AB181A51@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=STDS-1788>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG?body=INFO%20STDS-1788>
List-owner: <mailto:STDS-1788-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-subscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:STDS-1788-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
References: <4CFD47B9.4060301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <B2336E36-C260-46AE-9AB4-D151AB181A51@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcuV+C3/TZ5iIXybRpyiS9X835Ft5AALLV4g
Thread-topic: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES

I vote YES, since as recommended it makes sense

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1788@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1788@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Pryce
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:17 AM
To: stds-1788
Subject: Re: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES

P1788

If Motion 21.02 had said the features described are *required* I should certainly have voted NO. The position paper is unclear about this because the standardese words "shall", "should", "required" etc. hardly occur, and don't make the intent obvious.

But Juergen & Marco's accompanying motion statement, below, make it clear these features are *recommended*:

Follow-Ups:
- P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
  - From: Corliss, George

References:
- P1788 Motion M0021.02
  - From: Wolfram Luther
- Re: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
  - From: John Pryce

Prev by Date: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
Next by Date: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
Previous by thread: Re: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
Next by thread: P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread