From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave...@epokinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:56 AM
To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-...@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Feedback on rc1d
Good, I wanted to rephrase that sentence anyway. Right now we have "Even
though these rules are RECOMMENDED and not REQUIRED, an implementation that
fails to observe them may experience an unacceptably high number of false
I'd like to change it to "To reduce the requirements on a minimally
conforming processor, the majority of these rules are RECOMMENDED rather
than REQUIRED. An implementation that fails to observe them, however, may
frequently treat two XRIs as nonequal when in fact they are equal."
Does that sound ok?
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwac...@visa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: [xri-editors] Feedback on rc1d
dsr21: "may experience an unacceptably high numberof false negatives" - its
not clear what "false negatives" means in this context. I would say "may
frequently treat two XRIs as nonequal when if fact they are equal."
section 18.104.22.168 has a cross reference to section 0 - clearly this is wrong.
Nothing else jumps out at me - though I've focused mostly on changes.
Reviewing old unchanged text tends to be less effective because of my
familiarity with it. Things always slip by - time for more eyes!!!