Disposition of comments on PDTR 9573-11

    SOURCE: WG8

    PROJECT: JTC1.18.15.07.02

    EDITOR: Anders Berglund

    DATE: 1990-10-09

    Japanese member body

    (1): accepted
    (2): rejected; the suggested specification would result in a
         table different from that on page 16
         RRULES=' ' in the start tag of TABBODY indicates that
         all rows that do not have a specification of RRULES on the
         AROW tag should not have rules. The last two AROW tags
         specify rules at the bottom of those rows.
         If one specified RRULES=' ' on the TABBODY tag an
         RRULES attribute would have to be specified on all but the last
         AROW.
         If the comment is due to a misunderstanding due to unclear
         wording of the text the editor will modify the text.
    (3): accepted
    (4): accepted
    (5): accepted

    UK member body

    Reasons for disapproval

    1st para: the UK member body is asked to substantiate the
       statement; there are no detailed comments concerning
       clauses 4 and 5.
       Tag minimization facilities are used in the DTD described
       in Annex A; a clarification of this comment is requested.
    2nd para: we express our regret that the UK experts have not
       been able to review all the text and hope that such a review
       will be possible in future. We express our surprise that the
       document is described as "the standard" and "this standard";
       the document circulated is a Proposed Draft Technical Report.

    Detailed comments

    Clause 3
    1st para: no "adopted" element has been found in PDTR 9573-11
    2nd para: rejected: the naming of elements is very much a question
       of taste.
       Since divisions down to sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-clause are permitted
       names "parapharsing" heading of level 1 thorugh 6 are felt to be
       more appropriate than clause, subclaus, ... ssssscla (or similar)
    3rd para: the section element is mentioned on pages 1 and 2 as one
       of the alternatives of the major division of the standards.
       NOTE: ISO/IEC TR 9573-11 is not intended to be a replacement
       for the IEC/ISO Directives.
    4th para: the start-tag of the BACKM element cannot be omitted.
       The element is retained since it is expected that the use of the
       DTD for European Standards further backmatter elements will need
       to be added.
       a <BACKM> tag will be added in the example on page 2.

    Clause 3.2.2
    1st para: the information contained in attributes of the
       STANDARD element and as elements of the "title page"
       has been restructured completely following comments on the PDTR.
       Text will be added to Annex A to explain the usage of %doctype.
       Annex A cannot be normative, since no part of an ISO/IEC Technical
       Report is normative.
    2nd para: rejected: amendments are outside the scope of the application

    Clause 3.2.3
    1st para: accepted, text will be added
    2nd para: accepted, text will be added
    3rd para: see response to 3.2.2 1st para

    Clause 3.2.4 & 3.2.5
    see response to 3.2.2 1st para

    Clause 3.5
    the scope will be updated to state that this part of 9573 is
       documenting a specific application and that it is expected
       to be used mainly together with a context sensitive editor
       where the user can be prompted with more easily understood
       text than element names.
       A brief discussion on the design approach will be added to
       Annex A. This will cover aspects such as "general purpose"
       elements (e.g. H1) versus content specific elements (e.g. SCOPE),
       naming of elements, and the usage of parameter entities.
       References to the tutorial parts of 9573 will be made for
       fuller discussions of the pros and cons of the different
       approaches that could have been taken.

    Clause 3.6
    rejected: the text states that an optional COLS=1 attribute may
       be used. The application (as opposed to the DTD) restricts
       the usage to reject e.g. the value 999

    Clause 3.7 & 3.8
    see response to 3.5

    Clause 3.9
    1st para: the comment as such is rejected; as stated in the text
       the formatter automatically inserts the text appropriate for
       the number of references.
       Text will, however, be added to describe the APPLY attribute.
    2nd para: rejected; it is felt clearer to most users to enter
       explicit start tags for lists. In addition a need for additional
       text preceeding the list may be required in future.
    3rd para: accepted

    Clause 3.10
    1st para: accepted, the ALLTYPES value will be removed.
    2nd para: accepted, text specifying restrictions of the values
       will be added
    3rd para: accepted, text specifying restrictions of the values
       will be added

    Clause 3.11
    withdrawn

    Clause 3.12 - it is assumed that it refers to 3.13
    1st para: rejected; the text is to be found on p 2 col 1, d) and e)
    2nd para: rejected; see response to 3.6 (with the addition of
       COLSN=2)
    3rd para: accepted; text will be changed to COLSH.
    4th para: accepted; text will be added.

    CERN A Liaison

    a) accepted
    b) accepted
    c) accepted