Jon Callas wrote:
I am diffing against bis-12 which is the only old version I have here.
Another change I notice is that the preferred algorithm signature
subpackets in 5.2.3.7, 5.2.3.8 and 5.2.3.9 have their contents changed
from a "sequence" of one-octet values to an "array" of one-octet values.
However we do not otherwise define "array". Is that word really
better than "sequence" here? To me, a sequence of values is a plainer
description while an array perhaps connotes a somewhat more complex
data structure. Of course in C an array is simply bytes in memory so if
that is how it is being read, OK. I'm just worried that an implementor
is going to look for a definition of array.
I'm worried that an implementor is going to look for a definition of
definition. This is something I worry about with each "clarification" we
make, that N people think it's better and M people think it's worse.
This is why I am resistant to clarifications (even though it seems I
make a lot of them).
I agree with you that "sequence" is clearer than "array" and given how
much of the text is either yours or mine, it's no wonder it used to say
"sequence." I'm more than happy to change it back.
Let me meditate upon it for a bit.
Wasn't the point here that some things were called a "sequence" and some
an "array", and they should all be called the same thing?
FWIW, I find sequence less clear than array. My maths background makes
me suspect that there's some extra subtlety that I'm missing when I see
"sequence".
However, I'm more concerned about the inconsistency, which is definitely
confusing.