Revised document conformance text

Thu Jun 30 03:01:14 CEST 2011

I've attached new versions of these texts. Instead of tracking changes, I'm just including the whole of the replacement text for section 2.4/2.1 ("Document Conformance").

We broadly agreed on these changes during the meetings, but some rewording was done by Alex and myself on the projector late on Tuesday afternoon. The changed section is the third bullet of the Part 4 edits (beginning "The document shall obey.."), which is intended to combine both Strict and Transitional normative prose provisions into Transitional conformance. If WG4 can review that text, I think we should be ready to discuss these modifications on the next conference call. This text is intended to resolve DRs 09-0316, 09-0317 and 09-0318.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com] 
Sent: 29 June 2011 17:37
To: Alex Brown; Doug Mahugh; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: Revised document conformance text

I concur with Alex - this was my mistake in deleting the text with change-tracking switched on. Document Conformance should be unchanged by this DR.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk] 
Sent: 26 June 2011 22:38
To: Doug Mahugh; Chris Rae; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: Revised document conformance text

Dear all,

No - we were, in the end, just addressing the Document Conformance (and so the app conformance stuff should have been deleted - but not change tracked - in the suggested change). I think we were all flagging a bit when these DRs were done. Perhaps, since they are 'high impact' we could re-confirm them in a conference call ...

- Alex.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Mahugh [mailto:Doug.Mahugh at microsoft.com]
Sent: 27 June 2011 02:20
To: Chris Rae; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: Revised document conformance text

Perhaps there was some sloppiness here related to the last-minute rush to get this done? Or is there really an intent to remove the concept of application conformance altogether? I don't recall us ever discussing such a change.

- Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:01 AM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Revised document conformance text

Alex and I think we're happy with the attached text for document conformance clauses on parts 1 and 4. We'll project these tomorrow, at which point we can hopefully close the three related DRs.

The texts have actual change-tracking applied, rather than the formatting I normally use to indicate change-tracked text.

Chris

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DR 09-0316 changes Part 1 no CT.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 76916 bytes
Desc: DR 09-0316 changes Part 1 no CT.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20110630/22f5b6b7/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DR 09-0316 changes Part 4 no CT.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 63774 bytes
Desc: DR 09-0316 changes Part 4 no CT.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20110630/22f5b6b7/attachment-0003.bin>