Re: possible decision on interchange representation
Michel
On 2014 Jun 20, at 21:44, Michel Hack wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:28:07 -0500, Baker Kearfott wrote:
>> Let's see what Dima and Michel come up with, and go from there.
>
> I think I want input from a wide range of individuals, which is why
> I'm not just talking to the small group who worked out the current
> definition of interval interchange formats (sections 14.4 and C6.2).
>
> I read the correspondence (primarily) between Dmitry Nadezhin, Ned
> Nedialkov, John Pryce, and Guillaume Melquiond, and see the tug of
> war between "Level 3" and "Level 4" concepts, and the insidious
> Endianness issue.
...
> I will now try to come up with actual text replacement for sections 14.4
> and C6.2 -- the latter also needs to be cleansed of bit-string mentions,
> notwithstanding my first impressions. Meanwhile I'll be monitoring your
> comments. Please don't be silent; we don't have much time.
Your suggestions so far look good to me. Dmitry's wording in the current §14.4 says
"The choice of ... are parameters of interchange encoding."
Maybe, after a similar sentence listing relevant parameters, you can suggest, without requiring, a way in which such parameter data could be included as a file-header, e.g. as you wrote on 2014 Jun 19, at 14:45:
"some headers are carefully structured so that they include
a 16-bit field known to hold a small (<256) integer, from which it is
easy to recover ordinary (non-messed-up) Endianness"
John