I think that comes from A2.4 not D1.1.  You are just looking in the wrong book.

Take this for how it is meant.  For what ever it is worth, as an inspector, I have often been accused of not having common sense.  I have been accused of toting my "bible" in the shop.  I have been accused of being critical on things most all on here would agree need fixing; like that little bit of undercut, or porosity (eagle eye), or fixing a discontinuity found during a UT inspection that just crosses into rejectable catagory and is difficult to find when gouging (you mean that little thing is gonna make the building fall down).  "Doug, you gotta have a little common sense and let that kinda stuff go.  Quit being so picky.  You are costing us too much money.  They are gonna fire you if you don't stop slowing us down like that."  It is not as if, when I take of my inspector hat, I can't see their arguement and think the exact same thing and even agree with their perspective.  It is not that I don't have any common sense.

Although this particular case here seems quite trivial to dispute, I don't take it as my responsibility to do too much interpretation of code or specification statements.  Someone somewhere up the foodchain is expecting me to have a black and white judgement with no grey areas.  My conscience often tells me when I haved used "common sense" and let something slide, that that was not my call to make.  I am not the engineer.  I agree my training is supposed to make me question some situations and even ask for variances of code stated situations.  My general approach is to find in the code what will allow a situation instead of always trying to find a reason why you can't.  But when I can find no legitimate reason to "allow" a situation, then it will be deemed not in conformance.

So, as for this inspector, I take it as a compliment when someone tells me I have no common sense.

Many, many years ago, AWS A2.4-76 dropped a note from the sketches used for intermittent fillet welds. Prior to 1976, the sketches included a note that the intermittent fillet weld started with a increment (or segment) at one end of the joint and terminated at the opposite end of the joint with another increment. If necessary, the increment length could be increased to accommodate the requirement. Clearly, I'm paraphrasing, so don't beat me too badly.

I wrote a letter to the committee chairman and pointed out that the new sketches in A2.4 must have omitted the note requiring that the welds start and stop at the ends of the joint.   

The reply I received (from one of my past professors) basically said: "Hey dumb ass, A2.4 is not a workmanship standard. The welding symbol is to be interpreted as follows; the length of the weld specified is to be considered the minimum length required, the size specified is to be considered as the minimum weld size required, and the maximum unwelded space between adjacent weld segments is not to exceed the pitch minus the segment length. If the engineer wants a weld at both ends of the joint, they have to be specified separately from the intermittent fillet weld, and if the spacing and length of each weld segment is a concern, then they too should be specified and dimensioned separately and the intermittent fillet weld symbol would not be approprite."

So, I have always looked to the applicable code to provide workmanship requirements and the welding symbol as the minimum requirements for weld size and length. The code specifies the workmanship requirements, such as allowing the fillet weld to run undersized, root openings within allowable limits, etc. If the workmanship portion of the code does not apply restrictions, who am I to make up my own? That is not to say the company can't impose more restrictive workmanship requirements than the code.

The bottom line is, a continuous fillet weld that has the correct size meets the reuirements of the intermittent fillet weld symbol based on the criteria provided by the A2.4 committee chairman. I don't believe I would like to see such a situation from a productivity or distortion standpoint, but as an inspector, it does meet the requirements of the intermittent fillet weld symbol as interpreted by the guidelines provided by the A2.4 chairman. Does it matter if the weld segments are exactly diagonally opposite when staggered intermittent fillet welds are specified or directly opposite each other if chain intermittent fillet welds are specified? No, if you base your answer on the interpretation I got from the committee chairman in 1976.

It will be interesting to see the latest revision of A2.4 to see if additional clarification was deemed necessary.

Best regards - Al