PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Dear colleagues,

In Prague, Francis and Shawn prepared "29500 Defects: Explanation of 
whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment" (WG4 N0036 
and SC 34 N1187) 

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/def/1187.pdf

This document is mentioned in the WG4 minutes (WG 4 N 0038) and the 
SC34 meeting report (SC34 N1209).

In my understanding, this document is a working document.  It is 
a guideline rather than a bible.  However, we have made decisions 
on the basis of this document.

This document does not mention anything about the BRM.  However, some
people have argued that any failure to implement the BRM resolutions is
a defect.  We probably have to discuss about this point.

However, at this point, I would like to focus on the specific case at 
hand, namely the addition of the % symbol.

Mohamed was surprised to see the Percentage Related stuff in the COR. 
On the other hand, I have thought that it should certainly be covered by 
the COR, because (1) the omission of the % symbol is an unintentional error 
in implementing a BRM resolution, (2) none of the existing data become 
invalid, and (3) no singificant new features are added.  How do other
members feel?

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)