From: jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com (John Pawling)
In summary, I believe that the example should be removed because it causes
confusion.
That's OK with me.
Someone (I can guess who :-) will need to write up a concrete chunk of
text for inclusion in CMS. The proposal isn't quite useable as is,
but the needed wordsmithing and merger with Tim's original text should
be minor.
Rich Ankney, do you have any opinions on how easily the X9.45 and ASTM
purposes would fit into the proposed framework? Are the four basic
purposes sufficient?
Trevor Freeman, Michael Warner and others, do you have any comments on
the latest proposal?