Hello Mark, and All
I am okay with the updated text that Mark provided below.
If there is no objection, I will incorporate it as the resolution for CID 1508:
Revised.
At the end of 1.4, add a paragraph:
“A construction of the form "the
x element can be included in a, b and c frames" or "the x element can be present in
a, b and
c frames" is not to be understood as being a complete list of frames
in which the element might be present.”
Thank you,
Emily
Hello Emily,
I think at least the first set of additional comments is in scope of CID 1508,
because the spec uses "can be included" and "can be present" interchangably.
So if you don't accept them for now, then my wording proposal for 1.4
becomes:
A construction of the form "the
x element can be included in a, b and
c frames" or "the
x element can be present in a, b and
c frames" is not to be understood as being a complete list of frames
in which the element might be present.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Qi, Emily H [mailto:emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 May 2018 23:59
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: TGmd CID 1508
Hello Mark
I will include your proposed text in 1.4 as part of the resolution of CID1508.
As for additional comments you had, I think they are out of the scope of CID 1508. They are deserved a separate discussion.
Thanks,
Emily
From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2018 3:14 AM
To: Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: TGmd CID 1508
Hello Emily,
How about something like:
A construction of the form "the
x element can be included in a, b and
c frames" is not to be understood as being a complete list of frames
in which the element might be present.
?
Then change "present" to "included" in 9.4.2.127.1, 9.6.2.6, 9.6.3.2.2 (2x),
11.9.3.2, 11.15.11, 11.22.16.3.4 (2x), 11.38.4 (2x), G.3 (2x).
And change "can be included" to "may be included" in 9.4.2.20.7,
9.4.2.20.16, 9.4.2.20.19, 9.4.2.21.15, 9.4.2.21.16, 9.4.2.21.17,
9.4.2.21.18, 9.4.2.45, 9.4.5.4, 9.6.19.11,
[because I think in those locations it's the only place that
normatively establishes that >1 is allowed]
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW:
http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: Qi, Emily H [mailto:emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 April 2018 22:07
To: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: TGmd CID 1508
Hello Mark,
Could you please provide some texts in 1.4 for CID 1508?
|
1508 |
"The xxx element can be included in xxx frames" is just duplication and almost guaranteed to result in spec rot |
Delete the sentences containing "can be included" in 4.9.3, 9.4.2.18, 9.4.2.85, 9.4.2.138 |
Regards,
Emily
|
|
|
|
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1