To: J3                                                     J3/23-140
From: Malcolm Cohen
Subject: Responses to **-010, 012, 013, 060.
Date: 2023-February-22


**-010 "The following are not actual definitions"

Reject. They are all actual definitions.

       "the definition must start with a noun"

Reject. A definition may start with an adjective (for example, see
ISO 10241-1 item "3.4.1.1.2 term", which begins with the word "verbal").

       "users of the OBP do not have access to 15.3.2.2"

Reject. Users of the OBP who do not have access to the rest of the
standard will find many of these incomprehensible in any case.

       "definitions must not rely on the content of clauses of a given
        standard"

Reject. These are essential.

**-012 "The cross-references to terms within clause 3 are done incorrectly,
        they are not in accordance with DP2"
       "When cross-referencing a term in Clause 3, please put the term in
        italics and add the term entry number."

I can find no such requirement in DP2.

       "This hyperlink must be added to '3.46', not to the word."

Reject. That is not how they are presented in ISO 10241-1, where the
hyperlink is active over the word and the number.

Partial acceptance: word in italics with parenthesised entry number,
                    both hyperlinked as in ISO 10241-1.

Edit:
[Clause 3 throughout] Change intra-clause hyperlinks to have the term in
                      italics, followed by its term number in parentheses.
                      Both parts should be actively hyperlinked.
{Note to J3: this conflicts with our notation for BNF terms, but most of
 the defined terms have embedded blanks so maybe not too much confusion?
 E.g. the term "cosubscript" would be ambiguous, but fortunately does not
 appear in any other clause 3 text than its own definition.}

**-013 "Most of the definitions include cross references to other clauses
        in the document, which is not allowed in ISO documents"

Reject. These are essential for comprehension, and there is no such
prohibition in the directives.

**-060 Insert "see" or "in" before subclause numbers in refs.

Reject. This is unnecessary and distracting. When we mean "see", that is
written directly in the text. That is, in other places "see" or "in" is not
being implied, the reference is just there to help people less familiar
with the document (or without electronic search, e.g. paper copy) to find
relevant subclauses easily.

===END===