(j3.2006) UK10 paper

[Malcolm Cohen]

>Ah.  That was not in the rationale.  It was in the small section
>of the specifications.

Right, it is in the requirements, quite apart from being a consequence of the 
rationale.

>In any case, the paper (rather badly) violates the one paper, one topic rule.

It is not unreasonable to think that a single line item in N1982 (UK-10 except 
subitems 2c and 3) is a single topic, even though in hindsight it would have 
been better to split up the edits by subitem.

>And we have had objection (I don't know if the objection still stands)
>to one of the topics covered (arithmetic IF).

It is approved by WG5 resolution.  As far as I know, no member body has 
expressed any concerns after the meeting.  Absent some devastating new technical 
information, we should not be making political decisions to ignore international 
consensus expressed by WG5 resolution.

>  Trying to un-weave the one topic
>from the rest will be tedious.

It looks pretty straightforward to me, but then I have to do this stuff all the 
time.

>Frankly, I agree that block data should be obsolescent.  I am concerned
>with the jumble presented in the flurry of last-minute papers.

Fortunately David's papers do not fall into the "jumble" category, unlike some 
others... but criticising others' papers is an easy cheap shot so I won't go 
there.

But I do object to the "flurry of last-minute papers" categorisation.  The 
papers all meet the ancient 2-week rule, which was from when the papers were 
being sent by snail mail all around the world, when the first many people even 
saw of most topics was not much more than a week before the meeting.  There will 
be at least one actual "last-minute" paper from me anyway.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.