PLEASE PROOF: Draft COR Set 1 for 29500

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

> 
> 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.

I rather think that WG4 should establish creteria first, since WG4 knows 
technical issues very well and have reasonable understanding of the
directives. In Prague, we created the first version of such criteria and
have always applied it.  I agree that it is a good idea to send it to
ITTF and ask for their comments.

> 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.

In the BRM, MBs clearly would like to migrate from T to S.  I believe
that members of WG4 certainly would like encourage the migration.  Those 
who have been heavily involved in this topic clearly said so in Prague.
Furthermore, Shawn gave an interesting demonstration and talk in CPH. 
However, nobody has proposed to withdraw Part 4, probably because
existing document will not instantly disappear.

I agree that some rationales for the namespace changes are very useful
for the first AM set.
 

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)