From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Jan  3 19:39:54 2005
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo1
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo1@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 6D61C149E0; Mon,  3 Jan 2005 19:39:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66])
	by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C3F572A
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon,  3 Jan 2005 19:39:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12])
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j03IXmwE028795
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:36:50 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov)
Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:04:22 -0800
Received: from [130.134.31.78] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54])
          by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov
          for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:05:23 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <07E1C268-5DB2-11D9-8CD8-000D93AD336A@nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
From: Richard E Maine <Richard.Maine@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: WG5 letter ballot on interpretations
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:05:20 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0 () 
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

David Muxworthy said:

 > JP-24: The proposed edits are already in F03 (at 166:6-7) so defeat of
 > this interpretation would be unfortunate (also true of 000103).

Though I noticed the same facts (at least for 103 - I didn't do enough
correlation to trace the JP-24 edit to f2003), I came to a different 
conclusion,
namely that these interps should be defeated as moot.  (My
ballot was submitted previously).

It seems to mostly come down to the question of what standard we
are interpreting. If we are interpreting f95, then passing these seems
reasonable... though other of the interps would make no sense as f95
ones. If we are interpreting f2003, then I'd say that these 2 make no 
sense.

As best as I can tell, the interps are a mix of f95 and f2003 ones,
with no explicit distinction.

-- 
Richard Maine                |  Good judgment comes from experience;
Richard.Maine@nasa.gov       |  experience comes from bad judgment.
                             |        -- Mark Twain

