AGs: Conformance clause removed: is this correct & impact

[thomasheritage]

It looks like #287 (despite being titled "Update conformance for EGs") resulted in the Conformance clause no longer being rendered for AG documents.

(1) Is this correct? Most/all published AGs do use conformance language and contain a Conformance clause. Is it helpful to remove this clause? The Standards Operations Manual v.3.1 does not seem to contain any provision relating to conformance language in AGs.

(2) Impact: removing the Conformance clause results in all subsequent clauses being renumbered which causes confusion in pre-existing references to published AGs when they are revised (assuming that the head of main on html-pub is used during the revision).

[SteveLLamb]

Having the Conformance section dictates how conformance language is to be used and/or restricted based on Document type(s), such as ST and EG, and how it affects (or doesn't) interoperability (example - https://pub.smpte.org/doc/st428-24/20241101-pub/index.html#sec-conformance).

AG documents have no such restrictions, and conformance language can be used as needed, as the entire of the document should be considered normative.

Specific reference to clause numbers are always advised against, as they are auto generated based on content. The numbering is only provided as convenience to the ToC.

@palemieux thoughts?

[palemieux]

No concerns re: clause numbering since the numbering is internal to each specific version of the document.

Re: conformance, the conformance section for engineering documents is not appropriate for AGs since it talks about interoperability. No objection to creating a conformance section for AGs and OMs.

[thomasheritage]

Specific reference to clause numbers are always advised against

Just to clarify: I was thinking of other (potentially external) documents that reference a clause within an AG (rather than clause references internal to the AG itself)

the numbering is internal to each specific version of the document.

I'm not sure how you formally reference a specific version of an AG. As far as I can see, some have a "published" date and some an "approved" date but none have a year in the Document Number at the top of the document.

No objection to creating a conformance section for AGs and OMs.

That sounds like it could be a good solution -- these documents do use conformance language so it's helpful to explain it.
I've captured this in #310

[SteveLLamb]

Just to clarify: I was thinking of other (potentially external) documents that reference a clause within an AG (rather than clause references internal to the AG itself)

We cannot control how external document reference, but they should follow the advice of not referencing specific clauses unless they absolutely have to. This is why we advise not to as well in our doc and rather prefer the usage of as per defined in.... I haven't found any reference to specific clauses in our AGs to other AGs on this pass. Yet, but i will removed them if i do.

I'm not sure how you formally reference a specific version of an AG. As far as I can see, some have a "published" date and some an "approved" date but none have a year in the Document Number at the top of the document.

We shouldn't. Should always be "latest" version. Too many things have changed between versions. The numbering will change to bump the tooling to be more in line with other docs. Approved date is published date as far as AGs are concerned atm.

[thomasheritage]

Thanks a lot for the updates.

I'll close this issue now that we have #310