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

[Rex Jaeschke]

Soon, I will circulate proposed responses to some of the comments we
received for the DCOR1 set ballot. However, 105 of the 161 comments from
that ballot will NOT be addressed in that posting, for the reason described
below:

 

There were 74 comments from BR (on all 4 parts) that said something like,
"Move the proposal to an Amendment, because the proposed change could break
compatibility with existing implementations"

 

There were 31 comments from MY (for Part 4) that said something like, "As
the change breaks compatibility with existing implementations,

the change is not suitable as Corrigendum and should be moved into an
Amendment."

 

Those NBs are not disputing the text of our proposed changes, just our
choice of publishing them in a COR vs. an Amd.

 

I propose that we do not make the changes suggested by these 105 comments,
and that we provide a general response. I provide the following words as a
starting point:

 

"Technical corrigenda inherently address technical issues identified with
the standard.  As such, it is virtually impossible to have them avoid
impacting existing implementations.  That said, 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 which would *not* break existing files. No change will be made."

 

Please think about this between now and the Paris meeting.

 

Regards,

 

Rex Jaeschke

ISO/IEC 29500 Project Editor

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20091120/98e74003/attachment.htm>