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

[Alex Brown]

Rex, all,

 

Perhaps "break existing files" -> "make existing documents invalid" ?

 

- Alex.

 

From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com] 
Sent: 20 November 2009 19:34
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Proposed Response to the comments suggesting that some DCOR1
set entries should have been in the FPDAM1 set

 

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/20091120/77a5359c/attachment.htm>