More consistently describe where an annotation is allowed

[henrikt-ma]

This addresses most of a problem I noted when an LLM didn't dare drawing conclusions about where the missingInnerMessage annotation is allowed.

Currently not covered by this PR:

• How to formulate this for the License annotation (three different context, two different value types).

[HansOlsson]

Suggested change

	Some of the annotations can also be specified in the \lstinline!uses! annotation.
	Some of the annotations can also be specified in the \lstinline!uses! annotation, as stated below.

Or something like that.

Compared to the previous text it seemed a bit vague (which ones?)
I understand that since it is given for the specific annotations it is better to only give it there - but make that clear for users.

[henrikt-ma]

The entire paragraph introducing this subsection reads like this:

This section describes annotations that a top-level class can have to specify information associated to the version number.
Some of the annotations can also be specified in the \lstinline!uses! annotation.

For me, it goes without saying that it talks about what is stated below, and re-stating this would be ugly.

[HansOlsson]

I agree that it talks about what is given below. But it isn't obvious that the specific annotations that can be on a uses-annotations are specified below for the specific annotations, and e.g., not listed under the uses-annotation.

Just something like the following may be enough to indicate that the information is included here, and not somewhere else. Something like the following may make that clearer without restating anything:

Suggested change

	Some of the annotations can also be specified in the \lstinline!uses! annotation.
	Including whether they can also be specified in the \lstinline!uses! annotation.

[henrikt-ma]

But it is also stated for the uses-annotation itself, so we don't need this introductory paragraph to explain in detail where to find the information.

I think we need to remember that this is just the informal opening paragraph to the section, the consistent way of describing where each annotation may be used is the real solution to the problem. Would it be better to open the section with a paragraph which doesn't speak at all of where the annotations may be used?

[HansOlsson]

My first reaction was that it may work; and is preferable to a vague "some of ...". The important part is figuring out why it was added, and see whether it is still relevant.

As far as I can see the relevant issues are:
#2239
#161

It doesn't seem to indicate that it was added due to some clear need for that in itself, but only for what follows.
So, yes, we can remove it:

But, there is a clear need for what follows, and thus line 2461/2471 should clearly be updated as it currently says:

It is recommended that tools do not automatically store \lstinline!versionBuild! and \lstinline!dateModified! in the \lstinline!uses! annotation.

which is odd to add if we haven't stated that any annotations can occur there at all (and also an odd way to introduce the specific ones).

So, if we don't mention them at the start I believe it is best to move&duplicate that line to versionBuild and dateModified.

Additionally:

Line 2175/2186

See \cref{version-date-and-build-information} regarding the use of \lstinline!versionBuild! and \lstinline!dateModified!.

I believe that should be replaced by two separate references, as the changes above would move the text it was referencing.