P1788 Motion M0021.02 YES
YES. I agree with John, too.
I remark that these are motions of positions, NOT of wording. I assume that the Technical Editors will adjust wording when preparing actual standards text.
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Kreinovich, Vladik wrote:
> 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*: