Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] REVme CID 2297

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Mike, all,

I would prefer a resolution along the lines of Proposed Resolution #2.

In all of these cases (I think), the draft is not talking about a generic “high-throughput” thing, but is instead talking about things introduced in 11n. The draft could have been written to make High Throughput a defined term or proper noun or whatever, and in that case, the usual grammatical rules on compound adjectives would not apply, and the term shouldn’t be hyphenated. As it is, it seems the defined term / proper noun is “HT”, and so we don’t capitalize “high throughout” when it’s spelled out. Still, it seems more natural to me to think of “high throughput” (when referring to HT) as a single block that isn’t hyphenated.

Regards,

Sean

From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 10:07 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] REVme CID 2297

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---

Somehow the reflector was removed from this email thread.

Could other members who participate in TGm give their opinion on what approach we should take on resolving this comment?

Note that the commenter prefers Proposed Resolution #1.

Seeking feedback on the reflector will give us a direction to take when we consider this comment during a TGm session.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:24 AM Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark,

         thanks for spending your time working on this CID. I prefer resolution #1, as it's a simpler solution for the editors.

Kind regards

Stephen

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 09:54, Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello,

I have prepared the following resolutions. I've added #2 because I think

I heard Joe suggesting it at the very end of the teleconf (I can provide

locations if necessary).

Identifiers

Comment

Proposed change

CID 2297

Stephen McCANN

3.2

214.49

The term "high throughput (HT)" does not use a hyphen.

Change "high throughput (HT)" to "high-throughput (HT)".

Discussion:

It is not clear whether “high-throughput” should have a hyphen. Grammatically, as an adjective, it should, but IEEE 802.11 hates hyphens, and “high-throughput” is not on the list of exceptional permissions to use hyphens. Note also that “very high throughput” doesn’t have hyphens either.

Proposed resolution #1:

REVISED

Change “high throughput” to “high-throughput” at 2.18, 214.49, 229.40.

Change “High Throughput SIGNAL field” to “high-throughput SIGNAL field” at 239.59.

Change “High Throughput” to “High-Throughput” at 1338.37 (leftmost instance), 1339.55, 1339.59, 5389.46.

Proposed resolution #2:

REVISED

Change “high-throughput” to “high throughput”, except in “non-high-throughput”, case-insensitively (~40 instances, mostly in Clause 3).

Thanks,

Mark

--

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN   English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre       Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS      Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI                             WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

From: Stephen McCann <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2022 08:23
To: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Qi, Emily H <emily.h.qi@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>; stds-802-11-tgm <STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: REVme CID 2297

Mike,

        My original intention was to only suggest the change at the cited reference. I did not intend to check for every other occurrence in the draft. Thanks.

Kind regards

Stephen

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 23:57, M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Stephen,

Emily proposed a resolution today for this comment:

21/0689r0

2297

214.00

3.2

The term "high throughput (HT)" does not use a hyphen.

Change "high throughput (HT)" to "high-throughput (HT)".

There was a debate on what the scope of your comment was. Did you intend for the comment to fix only this location or did you want to go through the entire draft to fix other locations?

I'm asking because Mark Rison believes the scope needs to be expanded to fix every location where this issue exists. The comment was assigned to him on the call today.

Thanks,

Mike

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1

------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1