Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 14:05, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
> > I guess this will come off as smart, but if it is "controlled", I
> > would have expected someone to write down why this section was
> > written in the first place.
>
> Good point. In fact, how to maintain a rational as part of the document
> was discussed. At the time, it didn't seem critical to include the rational
> in the standards document. (You can have a good debate about wether rational
> is appropriate for the normative parts of a standards). Anyway, because we
> all learn from what we do, it now seems that having the rational would be
> helpful.
rational as part of the spec document, would probably make the actuall
spec a little "wordy" (not sure of the right term). There should
perhaps be 2 documents, 1 would be the actual spec, the other would be
the spec + rational. This would also help avoid the traditional
disagreement in the meaning of the spec, as the "commentary" on the
"bible" (so to speak) would be readily available :)
Reply to: