PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hello all,

Francis,

Even though I agree with your statements below, in Prague we decided to have a "prime directive" saying that if any changes from the BRM were not yet in the standard, correcting this would be an editorial fix and should therefore go in a COR. Whether this fix would break existing implementations were _not_ on the table.

I believe the reason was, that IS29500 now formally consists of the original submission by ECMA + the changes from the BRM. So if some of the BRM decisions had not made it in the final text, fixing this was purely editorial.

Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:02 PM
> To: 'Rex Jaeschke'; 'SC 34 WG4'
> Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500
> 
> No, that is not what WG4 decided in Prague and presented to SC34.
> 
> JTC 1 rules say that if a change fixes something that is
> unimplementable - e.g. inconsistencies in normative text - that can and
> should be fixed in a COR. The document that we spent considerable time
> on in Prague sets out the conditions under which a change that DOESN'T
> fix something that is already broken can be in a COR rather than in an
> AMD. If such a change can theoretically break existing implementations,
> the change should be in an AMD, not in a COR.
> 
> As I understand it, EDITORIAL changes that don't define new features or
> change existing features can and should be in a COR.
> 
> Francis Cave
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
> > Sent: 03 July 2009 18:45
> > To: 'SC 34 WG4'
> > Subject: RE: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500
> >
> > I believe WG4 decided that any DR that raised issues that were
> supposed
> > to be implemented as a result of the BRM, but which were not, were
> > assigned to a COR.
> >
> > Rex
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 1:23 PM
> > > To: Rex Jaeschke
> > > Cc: SC 34 WG4
> > > Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500
> > >
> > > Thanks Rex !
> > >
> > > I'm suprised that all the Percentage Related stuff are in the COR
> > >
> > > My understanding was that all that makes EXISTING document invalid
> > goes
> > > to AMD
> > >
> > > Why are those one gone to COR ?
> > >
> > > Mohamed
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Rex Jaeschke<rex at rexjaeschke.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Attached are the 4 Draft Technical Corrigenda, more than a week
> > ahead
> > > of
> > > > schedule. Please proof them and send any comments to this email
> > list
> > > as soon
> > > > as possible. The plan is to review and, hopefully, close-out and
> > > approve
> > > > these on the phone call of July 23.
> > > >
> > > > These are complete with the exception of 2 DRs, 09-0157 and 09-
> > 0216.
> > > The
> > > > debate on these 2 DRs can continue on the email list, and we can
> > > close them
> > > > on the phone call.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the non-trivial changes to the Relax NG schema are NOT
> > > included.
> > > > As we agreed, they will come later.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Innovimax SARL
> > > Consulting, Training & XML Development
> > > 9, impasse des Orteaux
> > > 75020 Paris
> > > Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> > > Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> > > http://www.innovimax.fr
> > > RCS Paris 488.018.631
> > > SARL au capital de 10.000 €
> >
> >
>