Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Semantic rules" of section 3.5 are actually syntactic rules #228

Open
adrienrougny opened this issue Nov 20, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

"Semantic rules" of section 3.5 are actually syntactic rules #228

adrienrougny opened this issue Nov 20, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@adrienrougny
Copy link
Collaborator

adrienrougny commented Nov 20, 2018

Target

Specification

Issue type

Bug

Bug report

Level and version
Level: 1
Version: 1.3

Section and page
Section: 3.5 (Semantics rules)
Page: 43 -- 46

Bug description
Most "Semantic rules" of this section are in fact syntactic rules.

Proposed solution
Move those rules to section 3.4 "Syntax".

@adrienrougny adrienrougny added this to the future milestone Nov 20, 2018
@adrienrougny adrienrougny added fixed-review-overleaf Issue fixed needs Overleaf review and removed fixed-review-overleaf Issue fixed needs Overleaf review labels Sep 3, 2024
@adrienrougny
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Discussions at COMBINE 2024: @cannin will upload discussions notes

@cannin
Copy link
Contributor

cannin commented Sep 4, 2024

PDF with discussion notes:
pd_level1_version2_rule_discussion.pdf

@hasanbalci
Copy link
Collaborator

hasanbalci commented Nov 4, 2024

In light of the discussions at the Editors meeting, we decided to remove the distinction between syntactic and semantic rules for now. For this purpose, I updated the 3.4 Syntax heading to 3.4 Connectivity and containment, and 3.5 Semantic rules to 3.5 Glyph specific rules.

I also applied the "must/should" changes proposed in this pdf for the issue #249.

Finally, I removed the definitions of requirement and recommendation in the introduction of the Layout Rules section since we added a very similar but more generic version of it to the Introduction chapter of the specification (Page 2).

@hasanbalci hasanbalci added the fixed-review-overleaf Issue fixed needs Overleaf review label Nov 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants