Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of "modification" instead of "DFSG 3" seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed the start of this thread, so maybe I'm missine
something, but from what I see, the key question seems to be: is this
intended a teaching tool or a reference? If the former, then
"getting people to think" is an issue. If the latter, then perhaps
we can assume that people can already think.
If it's trying to be both, then I suspect it will be, of necessity,
less than perfect in either role.
I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to be
more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the summary
with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4) is a nice thing.
As a paralegal, I must say it's a nice and proper thing to reference
things down to paragraph/section.
br,M
