RE: [sv-bc], [sv-ac] Inconsistent referencing style in the LRM

OK. We need to check the referencing in SV-AC proposals. I am not sure
that they always follow this guideline.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: Bresticker, Shalom 
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org; sv-bc@server.eda.org;
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
Subject: RE: [sv-bc], [sv-ac] Inconsistent referencing style in the LRM

 

No, this is correct. These are IEEE rules.

 

When you reference an 1st-level clause, then you write "see Clause n".

 

When you reference a sub-clause, you write "see n.m".

 

We went through this already in 1364-2001.

 

Shalom

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
	Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:27 AM
	To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org; sv-bc@server.eda.org;
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
	Subject: [sv-bc], [sv-ac] Inconsistent referencing style in the
LRM

	Hi all,

	 

	I noticed that the referencing style in the LRM is inconsistent.
The references are sometimes denoted as "see xxx", and sometimes as "see
Clause xxx". E.g., in Clause 9.2 there are both styles:

	"- initial procedure, denoted with the keyword initial (see
9.2.1)"

	and

	"- Selection, loops, and jumps (see Clause 12)"

	 

	I think we should choose a uniform referencing style. If this
issue has already been discussed and resolved, I would like to know what
the final conclusion is.

	 

	Thanks,

	Dmitry

	
	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.