Proposed Response to the comments suggesting that some DCOR1 set entries should have been in the FPDAM1 set

[Rex Jaeschke]

Here's the proposed wording to deal with the comments regarding moving
corrections from the DCOR1 set to the FPDAM1 set. I have taken my original
words and integrated the suggestions from Alex and Francis. This response
will go with each of these comments including those also having individual
responses (such as MY-0001).

 

Rex

 

 

"Rejected. Technical corrigenda inherently address technical issues
identified with the standard.  As such, it is virtually impossible to have
them avoid impacting existing implementations.  When a technical defect in a
feature is corrected, all existing implementations of that feature, that did
not interpret it as if the correction had already been made, will be broken
to some extent by the change. In other words, Corrigenda routinely break all
existing implementations that have failed to anticipate the correction. WG4
understands the necessity of providing a stable standard for implementers
and, as such, has acted in good faith to limit changes proposed via
technical corrigenda to those that would make existing documents invalid."

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20091201/a6163525/attachment.htm>