Re: [dita-comment] Remove or change emphasis of spec section on constraint compatibility?

["Jeremy H. Griffith" <jeremy@omsys.com>]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:17:57 -0500, Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

>Hi Jeremy,
>
>One clarification and I think we're mostly in agreement:
>
>>And in that case, which in my experience is pretty rare, 
>>you would want to validate.  But having a processor enforce
>>this across the board, as the 1.2 spec advises, is pretty 
>>Draconian.
>
>The 1.2 spec does NOT advise this. It says processors "may" do so - that's 
>not even a "should" let alone a "must".
>
>I'd like to clarify the wording further, but we're already at the optional 
>level.

I was referring to the wording used in the set of 
examples in the 1.2 spec, in par. 2.1.4.4.3, 
"Conref and generalization for constraint modules".
Under "Resolution", they show only two alternatives, 
"Allowed" and "Prevented".  This appears to contradict 
the "can" and "may" language in the rest of the para.
Perhaps just remove "Allowed" and "Prevented"?

Given that change, I have no further objection to
the wording in that para.

I'm glad we get to agree!  ;-)

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
  <jeremy@omsys.com>    http://mif2go.com/