CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0345-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0345-1.txt	2020/01/28 04:49:40	1.5
+++ ai12s/ai12-0345-1.txt	2021/05/30 00:35:11	1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.10.2(5)                                    20-01-15  AI12-0345-1/03
+!standard 3.10.2(5)                                    21-05-27  AI12-0345-1/04
 !standard 3.10.2(7/4)
 !standard 3.10.2(10.5/3)
 !standard 3.10.2(13.4/4)
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
   Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an
   accessibility level{; when two levels are defined to be the same, the
   accessibility levels of the two associated entities are said to be
-  *tied* to each other}:
+  *tied* to each other. Accessibility levels are defined as follows}:
 
 Modify 3.10.2(7/4):
 
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@
 Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an
 accessibility level; when two levels are defined to be the same, the
 accessibility levels of the two associated entities are said to be
-@i<tied> to each other:
+@i<tied> to each other. Accessibility levels are defined as follows:
 
 !corrigendum 3.10.2(7/4)
 
@@ -649,5 +649,50 @@
 Attached is the AI I came up with. Not sure if Steve has some examples where 
 it would be important to have the "right" dynamic level, but I assumed those 
 don't exist and wrote the simplest possible change.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+[From WG 9 Review #41 - Tucker Taft:]
+
+In 3.10.2(5/5) it seems that the following paragraphs all relate to being 
+"tied to each other." To avoid that, we should probably alter the lead-in a
+bit. Currently we say:
+
+   Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an accessibility 
+   level; when two levels are defined to be the same, the accessibility levels
+   of the two associated entities are said to be tied to each other:
+
+Better might be:
+
+   Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an accessibility 
+   level, as defined below; in the following, we refer to the accessibility 
+   levels of two entities as being tied to each other if these rules imply 
+   their levels will always be the same:
+
+[Editor's response:]
+
+I don't think any part of 3.10.2(5/5) makes much sense as a Lead-in. This is 
+way too important to bury in a lead-in to an enless set of bullets. Perhaps 
+we should have a paragraph introducing the concept of accessibility levels 
+and "tied", then then a separate lead-in for the specific definitions of 
+accessibility levels, Maybe something like:
+
+Each master, and each entity and view created by it, has an accessibility 
+level; when two levels are defined to be the same, the accessibility levels 
+of the two associated entities are said to be tied to each other{.
+
+Accessibility levels are defined as follows}:
+
+[Tucker's response:]
+
+Your suggestion seems fine to me. I think you could combine your two 
+paragraphs without losing the importance of the definition, but up to 
+you to decide!
+
+[Editor's response:]
+
+OK; I think you're right about just adding to the end of 3.10.2(5/5). And 
+that allows treating this as an Editorial Review on AI12-0345-1. So I did 
+that.
 
 ****************************************************************