DR 09-0271 - Part 3 Normative References Missing

[Shawn Villaron]

Here is the updated text.  With this I believe we can move this to LAST CALL.



Deletion from Part 3, Clause 2:



Any behavior that is not explicitly specified by this Part of ISO/IEC 29500 is implicitly unspecified (Part 1, §4).



Deletion from Part 3, Clause 12:



[Note: the ext and extLst elements defined in Part 1 are examples of such extension elements. end note]







-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:13 AM
To: MURATA Makoto; SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: DR 09-0271 - Part 3 Normative References Missing



I think we'd be safe to remove the first reference ( clause 2 ) as it just talked about unspecified behaviors.  So no real loss there.



I have reservations about removing the second reference ( clause 12 ).  Let me think about this a bit and see if we can come to a resolution on Thursday.



-----Original Message-----

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:02 AM

To: SC 34 WG4

Subject: Re: DR 09-0271 - Part 3 Normative References Missing



> I also wonder if we need to mention Part 1 at all?  It's not mentioned

> normatively, and Part 3 itself is pretty generic ( even the examples

> don't use Part 1 constructs ) .



How about deleting



"Any behavior that is not explicitly specified by this Part of ISO/IEC

29500 is implicitly unspecified (Part 1, §4)." in Clause 2



and



"[Note: the ext and extLst elements defined in Part 1 are examples of such extension elements. end note]" from Clause 12



?





Cheers,

Makoto <EB2M-MRT at asahi-net.or.jp<mailto:EB2M-MRT at asahi-net.or.jp>>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100324/cadf1b27/attachment.htm>