[Fwd: [sca-assembly] Interesting PR comment]

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[sca-assembly] Interesting PR comment
Date: 	Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:08:02 -0400
From: 	Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>
To: 	sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org,
sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org, sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org




One of the PR comments (editorial) against the C++ spec (made by a TAB
member) was:

Moreover, the use of "following," or "above," or "below," creates
ambiguity about which "snippet" or "code extract" is being described.
The better practice would be to number all of them and then make
specific reference to those numbered (suggest) "code examples".

Note that the use of indirect and ambiguous references limits the
utility of the final version as others cannot make clear references to
the "code examples" either in texts, tutorials, manuals or other materials.

One could argue that the use of line numbers makes precise citation
possible, if awkward, but the ambiguity of internal referencing remains.

This same comment could be made for a number of other SCA specs. So I
thought I would pass it along.

The C/C++ TC is taking the approach of captioning snippets, tables, and
figures and using explicit cross-references in the running text.

Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Master Inventor

Research Triangle Park,  NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: aupperle@us.ibm.com