Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Peter Knaggs" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST v4 Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:05:08 -0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <3a561970-391e-4f30-8dc8-049d5942f159@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <2012Feb28.181840@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <_OSdnb6K1PDSz9DSnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@supernews.com> <2012Feb29.164244@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="GkV2GCblgsqZVxoBZTfHMA"; logging-data="5689"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m6xG8F6XI9LGUi1xZDkxn" User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (Win32) Cancel-Lock: sha1:PVvQdbV8zFgkYVsNnQJcbUSzG5M= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.forth:9755 On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:42:44 -0000, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" writes: >> Discussions such as most of the first paragraph should be in the >> Rationale to this section, IMO. The Normative text shouldn't discuss, >> recommend, or offer options, but instead should concentrate on rules. > > While it would be nice to be able to just copy the proposal text into > the standard when the proposal is voted into the standard, this is by > no means necessary. It's sufficient if the proposal is clear, > unambiguous, and understandable, and during the RfD phase we should at > first work out the content before we concern ourselves with details of > wording. It has never happened yet. Most people simply ignore the rational and expect the editor to magic up something. -- Peter Knaggs