|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 10/26/06 18:49
Andy Dingley wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> 2. By its own terms, "This appendix is informative". It isn't normative;
>> it doesn't grant or deny permission for anything. It declares no musts
>> nor shoulds nor mays nor may nots nor must nots.
>
> Then if you impose that strict an interpretation, even 1.0 Appendix C
> is invalid (as far as "invalid" matters).
This interpretation is "strict" in the same sense that only strict
interpretation would lead me to assume that it's raining outside when
someone says to me "It's raining outside". You are characterizing
Appendix C as something that it isn't.
> My point is that whatever (or how little) leeway is available for 1.0
> under Appendix C, this isn't available for 1.1.
You can water your garden by bringing water one glass at a time from the
kitchen sink, or you can use a hose. Suppose both approaches are
permitted under the regulations of the local Water Authority. Then
suppose that the Water Authority send out a "tips for homeowners" sheet
recommending that you use a hose because it's more efficient. The tip
sheet isn't permitting you or giving you leeway to use the hose because
you already have that permission and leeway. If the Water Authority
doesn't send out such a tip sheet, you have no less permission to use
either approach, AND you would still be wiser to use a hose even though
nobody told you so.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|