[temp.res.general] p5: dependent names in other than type-only context

Consider the first sentence in [temp.res#general-5]

A qualified-id whose terminal name is dependent and that is in a type-only context is considered to denote a type.

How about the otherwise case? if the terminal name is not in a type-only context, whether it may denote a type or it definitely does not denote a type? It's difficult to infer the meaning of the otherwise cases from the current sentence.

Is it more clear if we change it to that

A qualified-id whose terminal name is dependent is considered to denote a type if and only if its terminal name is in a type-only context.

In this sentence, the subtext means the qualified-id can never denote a type if the dependent terminal name is not in a type-only context. This subtext also conforms to the intent of the standard.

[temp.res#general-5]、特にその最初の文と前後の記述を読み、提案された「if and only if」の文言を、型専用のコンテキスト外における依存名について示されている意図と比較する。提案された明確化が受け入れられた場合に、文言に関する問題を解決し、その標準テキストを更新すれば完了となる。