PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[rjelliffe at allette.com.au]

> 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?

I think it is best to ask ITTF for guidance. If something has slipped
through the cracks, it was their responsibility, and they need to be in
the loop. It might give NBs more confidence too.

Surely there is no need to re-submit a change that has already been
approved by NB ballot?: a Corrigendum is certainly the appropriate place
for it rather than an Amendment, if we have to have a vote on it at all?

I think developers need to have a clear agenda. The only way I can make
any sense of WG4's decisions on making a new namespace for Strict (which
makes maintaining Transitional with features, like %, that augment the
Office 2007 reality ridiculous) is if the tacet intent is to
de-standardize Transitional in fairly short order. If this is indeed the
plan, it would be better to be explicitly decided and available as the
rationale to guide development of the standard.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe