On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The >> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I >> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for >> performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined >> composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. > > I don't see why a compound of two listed methods isn't a clear > extension of a double requirement. -G.
I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to perform an action dependently, the action would probably be unperformable. -root
