I read in !emc-pstc that Rich Nute <ri...@sdd.hp.com> wrote (in <200111132049.maa06...@epgc196.sdd.hp.com>) about '[Fwd: User Warning Signal Words]', on Tue, 13 Nov 2001: >Well... I guess I didn't make my point. > >The ANSI standard defines three classes of signal >words.
I think you did, but you may have missed mine. You don't agree with using 'danger', 'warning' and caution' as attention-demanding words of differing intensity, because that demands three special definitions that the readers don't know, anyway. My point is that, if attention-demanding words of differing intensity are considered necessary, how can they be chosen, other than the way they are at present? Of course, you may deny that differing intensity is necessary, so that only one word is required, but I am not sure that there would be a lot of support for that. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
