VOUnits: _another_ version, based on implementation feedback

[Matthew Graham]

Hi Markus,

If the document is really in good shape then another cycle through review should be quick and painless. The process exists for a reason, though, and if it has changed substantially from what was reviewed when it was promoted to PR then it must have another review.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

On Nov 6, 2013, at 12:23 AM, Markus Demleitner wrote:

> Dear List,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 06:31:28AM +0100, GENOVA Francoise (OBS) wrote:
>> I agree completely with Pat. We have established procedures for
>> acceptance of standards and at this stage it is too late to bring
>> comments except if there is something so critical that we have to
>> go one or two steps backwards in the procedure and delay acceptance
>> again and again. I did not have the impression that this was the
>> case with these comments.
> 
> You're certainly right in principle.  In the case of VOUnits,
> however, debate was moderate during the WD phase.  Then, during TCG
> review, debate picked up.  This lead to a fairly intensive
> re-structuring of the document, and more importantly, a few
> wide-ranging changes were introduced, first and foremost the quoted
> units.
> 
> To get an idea what the extent of the changes we're talking about
> here is, try
> 
> svn co http://volute.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/projects/std-vounits \
>  && cd std-vounits && svn diff -r 1787 | less
> 
> (and kudos for that to Norman again).
> 
> Now, the last debate is mainly about the consequences of the addition
> of quoted strings.  That debate could not have happened earlier since
> the feature only came in during TCG review.
> 
> We *could* follow the book and have Units do another loop through WG
> review.  I'd much rather be pragmatic here, though, mainly since the
> document is now in really good shape.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>        Markus
>