On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 14:05, Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > I guess this will come off as smart, but if it is "controlled", I > > would have expected someone to write down why this section was > > written in the first place. > > Good point. In fact, how to maintain a rational as part of the document > was discussed. At the time, it didn't seem critical to include the rational > in the standards document. (You can have a good debate about wether rational > is appropriate for the normative parts of a standards). Anyway, because we > all learn from what we do, it now seems that having the rational would be > helpful.
rational as part of the spec document, would probably make the actuall spec a little "wordy" (not sure of the right term). There should perhaps be 2 documents, 1 would be the actual spec, the other would be the spec + rational. This would also help avoid the traditional disagreement in the meaning of the spec, as the "commentary" on the "bible" (so to speak) would be readily available :)
