On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities
> like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to
> specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish"
> order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is
> too ambiguous to work.
First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects
before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267
But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in
July this year:
> Clearly marked comments are considered
> to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless
> otherwise stated by the proposal.
(at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach
argument is a clever alternative).
The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at
least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments,
perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can
we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And
if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered
removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed.
Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could
imagine at least four outcomes:
1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked",
therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough
textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in
both halves that both halves are effective.
2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to
ineffective nonsense.
3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed,
so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing.
4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in
front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535)
and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment.
