On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:57:39PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> Patrick Durusau <> writes:
> >> > TAB-556 Conformance targets
> >> >
> >> > After reading 2.2.1 Legacy Interface, again, I have a suggestion
> >> > for conformance targets in section 9 (subject to my getting this
> >> > wrong): 1. Non-Transitional Device - enumerate which sections of
> >> > normative text I MUST conform to in order to have a
> >> > Non-Transitional Device. 2. Non-Transitional Driver - enumerate
> >> > which sections of normative text I MUST conform to in order to
> >> > have a Non-Transitional Driver. 3. #1 plus ?? = Transitional
> >> > Device. 4. #2 plus ?? = Transitional Driver with the
> >> > sub-numbering under 1 - 4 specifying the details of
> >> > conformance. Yes?
> >>
> >> I originally wanted to make all the legacy sections non-normative, and
> >> thus avoid any MUSTs in there. It's a bit weird, becuase legacy systems
> >> our outside the scope of the current standard, but we really do want to
> >> be kind for people in transition.
> >>
> >> I think Michael had objections to this, though. So here's my
> >> compromise:
> >
> > I thought about this some more.
> > This will basically mean that 1.0 co-exists with 0.9
> > and we'll have to maintain 0.9 and fix bugs there :(
> >
> > It isn't a lot of work to make it normative, why not
> > do it and make 1.0 supercede 0.9 completely?
>
> I can see your point, but I'll have to think about it. I have just
> spent three days sorting out the normative from non-normative sections
> of our document, and it's not a trivial transformation.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
BTW I just found the colelct environment which would let
us have a normative section collected from all around the
document.
Looks useful.
