Problem with a decision made on last week's WG4 telcon

[Rex Jaeschke]

This is not an issue of what WG4 wants to do nor does it have anything to do
with the guidelines we established as to what went into a COR vs. Amd.
Rather, it's a JTC 1 requirement. And we certainly can't use "whichever is
the faster" as a criteria for choosing. CORs are for corrections, Amds are
for amendments; that's it!


By definition, an Amd must correct and/or augment the standard, which means
"the normative text of that standard". (The non-normative text has no
bearing on the standard itself.) So any item in our proposed Amd that does
not correct and/or augment the standard does not belong in that Amd.

You may recall a discussion on this very topic at the Seattle SC 34 Plenary.
CH had asked for a letter ballot on the creation of a new project to create
an Amd that added an informative annex. That passed and a call for editor
and submissions followed. However, as Ecma Liaison HoD, I pointed out that
an Amd must contain some normative text. And as that proposed one wouldn't,
it couldn't be an amendment. So we made it a TR Type 3.

Resolution 13: Status of NP on Technical differences between ECMA-376: 2006
and ISO/IEC 29500: 2008

SC 34 notes that SC 34 N 1202, "New Work Item Proposal on Amendments to
ISO/IEC 29500-1/4:
2008, Technical differences between ECMA-376: 2006 and ISO/IEC 29500:2008",
has received
sufficient approval. Noting that an amendment involves addition or change to
a standard, and the end
product of this new work item is completely non-normative, SC 34 resolves
that, based on the resolution
of National Body comments contained in SC34 N 1234, this work item be added
to the SC 34 Program
of work as development of a Technical Report Type 3. SC 34 also notes that
the French and Korean NBs
have withdrawn their offers to provide a Project Editor, and that no
contribution has been submitted on
this work. SC 34 invites its NBs to consider offering a Project Editor or
making a contribution prior to
next SC 34 meeting, so that the work on the Technical Report Type 3 can
start at that time.

Regards,

Rex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jirka Kosek [mailto:jirka at kosek.cz]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:28 PM
> To: Rex Jaeschke
> Cc: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: Problem with a decision made on last week's WG4 telcon
> 
> Rex Jaeschke wrote:
> 
> > This fix es errors in examples, which are non-normative. As such, it
> > do es NOT meet the criteria for being in an amendment. As such, I
> have
> > NOT included this in the amendment. Inst e ad, it should be submitted
> > as a DR for the next COR.
> 
> Which document will be balloted earlier -- next set of CORs or
> currently processed AMDs?
> 
> This change should use faster of those two ways. We do not have
> criteria for *not including into amendment*, we have only criteria for
> *not including into corrigenda* which implies inclusion into amendment,
> but there is no reverse implication.
> 
> 					Jirka
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>        Professional XML consulting and training services
>   DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
> ------------------------------------------------------------------