| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Editors' Reflector ---
Hunter,
I think there is real grief in changing the note style: it would make the 11ac amendment note style inconsistent with its baseline.
Longer term, I also don't think we should adopt the new note style in .11. Numbering all notes in a subclause creates additional editorial work without any clear benefit. Numbering would need to be kept consistent across amendments that touch the same subclause. Notes would need to be renumbering when a subclause is subdivided (as I recently did splitting 9.31.5 into 3 subclauses) or a note is moved. It is not clear how numbering would be applied to notes in tables since tables float and may appear out of order with the surrounding text.
Notes are typically associated with the immediately preceding paragraph or with the table in which they reside. Sequential numbering through a subclause implies that there is some relationship between the notes (which there isn't).
-Robert
Hi Adrian,
In summary, since there is no "real grief" in making this change (the extent only the few editorial locations I've pointed out), it seems that I am being outvoted 2 to 1 in the MDR summary.
I'll sorta acquiesce with this, as long as the 802.11 Style Guide has an addition that explains that 802.11 does not follow the IEEE Style Manual in this regard. (It would also be helpful if someone could include in the Style Guide a reason for this change.)
The "paying closer attention to during the next revision" mentioned below is the least palatable option, as close attention is just the reason for the extensive 11mc revision process we're going through now.
Thanks,
Hunter
On 1/7/2013 00:21, Stephens, Adrian P wrote:
Robert and Hunter,
Regarding the numbering of NOTEs…
I got the following responses from IEEE-SA editorial staff: From Kim:
/So, with that being said, she believes it is incorrect in the document and she agrees with [David Hunter]. That being said, if making things more precise causes real grief and you feel we should stick to the same style we've used in the base and any other amendments we have published so far, we can continue doing what we've been doing because our old guidelines were ambiguous and we haven't all been on the same page internally. So, there is no reason to re-invent the wheel now. This is something we can pay closer attention to during the next revision. /
From Michelle:
Typically I use the style you use when formatting notes. If there is only one NOTE to the paragraph then there is no need to number it. If there are more than one to a paragraph within a subclause then they shall be numbered. Your right in 802.11 (i.e., NOTES are numbered when applying to a specific paragraph in a subclause and then if there are separate paragraphs within the subclause, requiring a new NOTE, we start the counter again). I am going to send your query and suggestion to Kim for clarification. But long story short, in the meantime I believe you should follow the same style you followed for the base.
My take from this is that amendments to 802.11-2012 should follow the style in that document (numbering sequence applies only
to a contiguous sequence of notes). We can discuss in REVmc whether to adopt the new style in that document (with the same requirement
on any amendments to REVmc).
Best Regards,
Adrian P STEPHENS
Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)
Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)
----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47
*From:*Michelle Turner [mailto:m.d.turner@ieee.org]
*Sent:* Friday, January 04, 2013 3:22 PM
*To:* Stephens, Adrian P
*Subject:* More info on NOTES
Hi Adrian,
I passed your query to Kim and I attached the following page from 802.11 to show her the style we used for 802.11.
"The Style Manual states clearly that multiple notes within a subclause should be numbered sequentially. He's introducing ambiguity into the mix by suggesting that each paragraph within a subclause might act like a de facto subclause. It doesn't.
5.1.3
blahblahblah
NOTE 1--
NOTE 2--
blahblahblahblah
NOTE 3--
NOTE 4--
The reason is for referencing. If you were to say see NOTE 2 in 5.1.3, there should only be one NOTE 2 in 5.1.3."
/So, with that being said, she believes it is incorrect in the document and she agrees with the 802.11ac editor. That being said, if making things more precise causes real grief and you feel we should stick to the same style we've used in the base and any other amendments we have published so far, we can continue doing what we've been doing because our old guidelines were ambiguous and we haven't all been on the same page internally. So, there is no reason to re-invent the wheel now. This is something we can pay closer attention to during the next revision. /
--
Michelle Turner
Sr. Program Manager, Document Development
IEEE Standards Association
e-mail: m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx <mailto:m.d.turner@xxxxxxxx>
PH: +1 732 562 3825; FAX: +1 732 562 1571
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this
CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-EDITORS
and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
|