COR .vs. AM

Rex Jaeschke rex at
Thu Feb 19 14:41:38 CET 2009

In December, I raised this question with an editor at ITTF in Geneva. Here
is the relevant extract from his reply:

"From a JTC 1 Directives perspective what is important is the result
achieved when the standard (ISO 29500) is applied. In other words, if
someone applies ISO 29500 prior to some change, and another person applies
ISO 29500 after that change, will the result(s) achieved by the two be
If the change has no impact on the result achieved when applying ISO 29500,
then a Corrigendum (DR) is sufficient. If the change does, then an Amendment
or revision is required."

I've decided that that explanation really is insufficient. Let me use a
specific example:

We treated DR 08-0009 (from GB) as a DR and we closed it. It relates to the
WordprocessingML field usage FILESIZE \k and FILESIZE \m.

Consider the case in which an implementer originally interpreted kilobytes
to mean 1024 bytes. If they apply the fix as we agreed, the result of this
field is now in thousands of bytes. Clearly, for many files, the result
before and after the fix was applied would be different. So, should that
have been processed as an amendment? Actually, our rationale for making it a
DR was that the result of this fix was always the initial intent and that's
was existing implementations did. That is, it was an oversight.

The JTC 1 Directives give the following guidance, but they still appear to
leave room for interpretation:

technical defect - A technical error or ambiguity in an IS inadvertently
introduced either in drafting or in printing which could lead to incorrect
or unsafe application of the IS.

technical addition or change - Alteration or addition to previously agreed
technical provisions in an existing IS.

An amendment is issued to publish a technical addition or change.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); e-SC34-WG4 at
> Subject: RE: COR .vs. AM
> Murata-san,
> I think the biggest disconnect here is what constitutes a bug fix
> versus an extension.  Do you have any thoughts as to guidance we could
> provide regarding the how to differentiate between a bug fix and an
> extension?
> Thanks,
> shawn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:04 PM
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at
> Subject: COR .vs. AM
> The convenor wrote:
> >In the Prague meeting, I would like WG4 to decide (1) whether they are
> >defects and (2) whether we should create amendments for handling them.
> >I would request every member body to think about these questions in
> >advance.
> The member body for Japan prefers amendments when proposed solutions
> are actually extensions rather than bug fixes.
> Cheers,
> --
> MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT at>

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list