From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Aug 5 23:02:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 44A1FC178E3; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:02:44 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 586 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:02:43 CET DST Received: from mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-3-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.100.54]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70831C178E1 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:02:43 +0200 (CET DST) X-Trace: 238632278/mk-filter-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.67.216.224/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.67.216.224 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmajANCNeUpPQ9jg/2dsb2JhbACCFASFbox/AQXBN4QYBQ Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4068) Comments on the draft standard X-IP-Spam-Verdict: SUSPECTEDSPAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,330,1246834800"; d="scan'208";a="238632278" Received: from 79-67-216-224.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [79.67.216.224]) ([79.67.216.224]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 05 Aug 2009 21:52:55 +0100 Message-ID: <4A79F127.8080802@stfc.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:52:55 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 References: <20090805103016.83EAFC178E1@www2.open-std.org> <1249495746.16770.574.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <1249495746.16770.574.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Van Snyder wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 03:29 -0700, John Reid wrote: >> WG5, >> >> Richard Cook, a senior ISO editor, came to SC22 last year and said he was open >> to email consultation. I therefore asked him to comment on N1782 ahead of next >> week's J3 meeting so that J3 can make any corrections required. His comments >> take the form of a WORD document. I have made this into N1790 and it is >> attached. With varying degrees of success, I have converted this to html, ps, >> and pdf. All four will be on the web site and I attach the first two. If anyone >> can do a better conversion job, please tell me. >> >> I have asked Richard if he insists on our removing the paragraph numbers, but he >> is on holiday until 13 August. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> John. > > The 1995 Ada standard, ANSI/ISO/IEC-8652:1995, has paragraph numbers. > > The reason for not using line numbers is that they will almost certainly > be irrelevant in translations, and therefore no help to translators for > the purpose of reference or incorporation of corrigenda. > > The reason for using paragraph numbers is that they are invariant under > translation. Yes, I understand this and made the point to Richard in my email. John.