Bob,
Understood and thanks. Col_headings (not Col_Headings? J) would work just
fine. I would personally prefer that...
1) "Sub-params" be changed to "Subparams"; or "subparameters" in the text
be changed to "sub-parameters"
2) The column header and subparameter concepts be separated clearly in the
specification.
I call on the IBIS Quality Task Group to assess the parser impact of changing
the interpretation of column headers from "subparameters". J
One minor tweak to my general subparameter principle: If it helps, you can
think of "subparameter" as referring to data which is a subordinate part of a
keyword, *has its own token*, and which appears on its own line. Therefore,
Fork and Endfork are subparameters, despite having no arguments, but
signal_name entries are not. If we fix the [* Matrix] and pin-related
definitions, this principle is consistent and iron-clad.
- MM
From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:55 AM
To: Mirmak, Michael; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ibis-editorial] Quick editorial issue notes
Hi Michael,
Good catches - especially for [* Matrix]. We can remove the Sub-Params line,
but
we will have to add the rule that each of the keywords must be followed by one
of the three argument listed arguments. The Example shows this.
We have to be careful and also update the
3.1 Keyword Hierarchy where the items (in parenthesis) are both sub-parameters
and
column headings. For legacy reasons, and document administration, and possible
ibischk6 parser message consistency, we should still keep the word Sub-params
for
column headings.
Adding Column_Headings: might create alignment problems with the keyword format.
If we do this, we have to be careful with other verbiage and also consider an
abbreviated
form such as Col_headings.
I have to think about this more.
Bob
From:
ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:23 AM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Quick editorial issue notes
Per a discussion in the Interconnect Task Group today, plus other messages
recently received, I wanted to note a few key editorial issues we need to
resolve for the next IBIS document:
1) There is a list of known IBIS 6.1 issues available at
http://www.ibis.org/ver6.1/ver6_1_known_issues.txt ;(note that this is being
updated with some new entries, so check back often). Most of these will be
tackled as part of our next editorial "scrub" of the document.
2) As noted today, the subparameter concept is (somewhat) inconsistently
used in the document. A minor issue is that the word "subparameter" is used in
the text, but the abbreviation "Sub-param" is used as part of the keyword
definition headers. A more significant problem occurs under several keywords,
where column headers are incorrectly referred to as "subparameters".
a. For [Pin Mapping], columns of data for the bus labels are improperly
referred to as "subparameters" in the text, but also as "columns" with
"entries"; the column header names are listed under the keyword definition as
"Sub-params".
b. For [Series Pin Mapping], the column header names are listed under
"Sub-params" but the word "subparameter" is fortunately never used to refer to
them. This also occurs for [Pin], [Diff Pin], [Pin List], [Repeater Pin], [Pin
EMI], and [Pin Domain EMI].
c. For [Resistance Matrix], [Inductance Matrix], [Capacitance Matrix],
the word "subparameter" is incorrectly used to refer to the keywords' arguments
and the argument choices are incorrectly listed under "Sub-params".
In general, these should be relatively easy to fix by adding a new definition
line called "Columns" for all the keywords except [* Matrix] and, where needed,
changing "subparameter" to "column" or "entry" (with plural variants) in the
corresponding text.
If it helps, you can think of "subparameter" as referring to data which is a
subordinate part of a keyword and which appears on its own line.
Comments?
- MM
