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

[Francis Cave]

Hi Rex

I'm not sure about the last sentence. It seems to say: "...to limit 
changes ... to those that would make existing documents invalid." I 
think you meant to say "... to limit the number of changes ... that 
would make existing documents invalid.". Otherwise it would seem that we 
are trying to invalidate existing documents through the changes proposed!

Francis



Rex Jaeschke wrote:

> 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/20091202/d112195a/attachment-0001.htm>