Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
This will give him experience as to what the GDC goes through every year and (hopefully) give a more grammatically correct manual.
|
Eric, I like your ideas about using caution when criticizing. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why everybody is seemingly dismissing this as a mere semantics issue. Go take a look at <R48>. I know that Eric is plenty familiar with it by now, because he is one of the outspoken rules gurus around here. Follow the flowchart with the 2006 KOP Parker cylinder in mind, as Tristan does.
It passes without any question or lawyering or grammatical quirks. It is obvious that this is not what is intended, because of the latest updates and Q&As, but <R48> still stands as written. This is a problem! I don't think it's worthwhile to criticize the GDC over ticky-tack semantics, but it's also a mistake to blindly defend them when there's an obvious conflict. Am I missing something here? I feel like I'm going nuts, because it's so apparent to me, but there's only one other person who will even acknowledge what I'm seeing.