Re: Referencing the DFSG [Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested]

[Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>]

Chris Waters wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>
>
> > My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
> > oversimplify and miss the limitations.  Getting people to think in
> > terms of "modification" instead of "DFSG 3" seems useful.
>
>
> Hmm, I think I missed the start of this thread, so maybe I'm missine 
> something, but from what I see, the key question seems to be: is this
>  intended a teaching tool or a reference?  If the former, then
> "getting people to think" is an issue.  If the latter, then perhaps
> we can assume that people can already think.
>
> If it's trying to be both, then I suspect it will be, of necessity, 
> less than perfect in either role.

I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to be 
more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the summary 
with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4) is a nice thing.
As a paralegal, I must say it's a nice and proper thing to reference 
things down to paragraph/section.

br,M