Re: a conflict between 3598(bis) and the base specification

Ken Murchison wrote:

> How about this?
>
> Original text:
>
> If the address is not encoded to contain a detail sub-part, then the 
> test evaluates to false.
>
> Proposed text 1:
>
> If the address is not encoded to contain a detail sub-part, then the 
> address fails to match any of the key-list arguments.
>
> Proposed text 2:
>
> If the address is not encoded to contain a detail sub-part, then the 
> address fails to match any of the specified keys.
Either one is fine, I slightly prefer choice 1 (on the other hand 2 is 
more readable. So I guess I can't really decide in this case :-)).