Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
Section 6.2 contains two subsections that are specified as non-normative and six subsections which are not specified at all. Is one to assume that the six that are not specified are, in fact, normative? If so, they are certainly odd in that they do not include the kinds of things that might normally be considered normative, e.g., Dependencies. If not, then the reason for specifying the two as non-normative is mysterious. Similarly, section 6.4 as a whole is specified as non-normative. What are we to conclude, then, about 6.1 and 6.3? A related issue applies to the diagrams. Section 6.2.2 is not labeled "non-normative", however, figure 6.5, which is contained in 6.2.2 is so labeled. I am not sure how to understand this. Conversely, in Section 6.2.7, which is specified as non-normative, none of the diagrams are labeled "non-normative", in stark contrast to Section 6.2.1, where all diagrams are labeled to agree with the section.
Overall, this is minor, but the inconsistency/incompleteness of the labeling only increases the chances that a user will misunderstand the specification.
Reported: TEX 1.0b1 — Thu, 3 Jan 2019 13:01 GMT
Updated: Tue, 14 May 2019 00:09 GMT
TEX — Normative or not?
- Key: TEX-5
- OMG Task Force: TACSIT Data Exchange (TEX) 1.0 FTF