@jensmaurer, @jwakely feedback welcome!

Personally, I would strongly prefer to make each requirement individually referencable.

@Dani-Hub Would it be sufficient to have a (very short) subsection for each requirement?

Maybe we don't need a new grouping subsection, but instead we can just put each requirement straight into its own level-3 subsection, so we'd have new subsections 16.4.4.3 -- 16.4.4.9.

@Dani-Hub Would it be sufficient to have a (very short) subsection for each requirement?

Yes, sure, we don't need extraordinary overhead. It is just the thing that we want to refer to them individually.

Note to selves: the fpos.requirements table should be quite easy to dismantle, too.

Note to selves: the fpos.requirements table should be quite easy to dismantle, too.

I'm eagerly awaiting that.

@Dani-Hub PRs are of course always welcome :-)

I will be looking into this in the New Year (2024) if no-one beats me to it. It is annoying how often these requirements tables float into misleading subsections due to page breaking.

Feel free to "assign" me the ticket so I do not forget.