Asmus Freytag wrote: > Recommending to vendors to support a minimal set is one thing. > Recommending to users to only use sequences from that set / or vendors > to not extend coverage beyond the minimum is something else. Both use > the word "recommendation" but the flavor is rather different (which > becomes more obvious when you re-phrase as I suggested). > > That seems to be the source of the disconnect.
That seems a fair analysis. Another way of putting this is that marking a particular subset of valid sequences as "recommended" is one thing, while listing sequences in a table with a column "Standard sequence?", with some sequences marked "Yes" and others marked "No," is something else. Equivalently, characterizing a group of valid sequences as "Valid, but not recommended" is something else. If the goal is to tell users that three of the sequences are especially likely to be supported, or to tell vendors that they should prioritize support for these three, then "recommended" and "additional," used as a pair, would be more appropriate. If the goal is to tell users "we don't want you to use the other 5100 sequences" and to tell vendors "we don't want you to offer support for them," then the existing wording is fine. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
