review material for X3J13

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 14 Aug 89 18:57:27 PDT
    From: chapman@aitg.enet.dec.com (14-Aug-1989 1646)

    I think we agreed to send the part of the standard that we sent to ISO
    to X3J13 for the review. We need to get the review material in the mail
    in the next week so that the committee will have time for a thorough
    review, and so that we'll have time to consider the comments we are
    bound to get.

Agreed.

    I can get the package together and mail it, but the ISO submission 
    had the following problems that should be corrected:

    1. Glossary term usage was irregular.
    2. Section 3.1 was omitted.
    3. The intros to a couple of the chapters were messed up.
    4. There were disclaimers in section 2.2 that need to be corrected.
    5. Fonting in the syntax section isn't consistent.

I can't comment on this, since I have not had the privilege of seeing
the ISO submission.  I'll just say that I think that any corrections
that will take a lot of time are best skipped, in the interest of
getting the review started.  Revised versions of some sections could
always be mailed later.

    I also received several comments at the last minute that there wasn't
    time to include.

Again if these will take a lot of time they should be skipped, otherwise
they should be put in.

    Finally, we need to determine whether the "tracer" flags to indicate
    what came from which X3J13 issue should be included in the review
    material. I think its presence will encourage more careful review.

I think it's important to have all the tracer flags in the hardcopy for
this stage of review.  I agree that omitting them from the ISO version
was a good idea, but not from the X3J13 version.

    Please let me know what you think ASAP so I can get this review
    material in the mail.

That's what I think.