Open rm5248 opened 1 year ago
New table for section 4.4 that makes more sense to me, explicitly showing that the data in byte 6 can change depending on the value of byte 1:
The other tables in the standard look fine to me, I don't think that they would have to change at all.
I agree the change to the table is an improvement.
The tables in sections 4.5, 4,6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 all have similar structure. I think they should get the same update.’
The language on lines 18-21 should also be changed.
I disagree with this pull request. I specifically posted two concerns on the email thread referenced, and this pull request does not address either of those two concerns:
I don't actually think the first concern can be addressed before addressing the second concern. So my question really is how do you propose to avoid the information duplication.
I disagree with this pull request. I specifically posted two concerns on the email thread referenced, and this pull request does not address either of those two concerns:
* there are many tables (Bob pointed this out as well)
Yes, this is a draft to solicit feedback. The other tables can be updated as well, I haven't done that as I want to solicit feedback on this section first before making the same changes to other tables.
* now there is duplication of information in the standard, which is a significantly worse presentation that carries forward risks.
Please inform me as to what information you feel is duplicated and why that duplication is bad.
why that duplication is bad.
Duplication of information can be bad when it is spread across multiple documents as they will invariably get out of sync and become a maintenance issue. If the information is contained solely within a single document (S, TN, WN, etc) then it should be less of a concern.
…ference
See: https://groups.io/g/openlcb/topic/98878366#14971