From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Thu Jan  1 12:18:02 2009
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 44320C178DA; Thu,  1 Jan 2009 12:18:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 573 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 12:18:01 CET
Received: from mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-2-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.100.53])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E66DC178D6
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Thu,  1 Jan 2009 12:18:01 +0100 (CET)
X-Trace: 124887007/mk-filter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.255.122/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 88.104.255.122
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk
X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4BAKIyXElYaP96/2dsb2JhbAAIy1yFcg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,312,1228089600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="124887007"
Received: from 88-104-255-122.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.255.122])
  by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 01 Jan 2009 11:08:27 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
In-Reply-To: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org>
References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <46B22CDF-458B-4BA1-A1A5-238196393945@bcs.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Muxworthy <d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk>
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3688) Ballot on the technical content of the TR
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:09:29 +0000
To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On 26 Nov 2008, at 18:31, John Reid wrote:

> Please answer the following question "Do you approve of the technical
> content of N1761?" in one or more of these ways (it is acceptable  
> to choose
> both 2 and 3).
>
> 1) Yes.
> 2) Yes, with comments.
> 3) Yes, except with OPTIONAL dummy arguments in interoperable  
> interfaces
>    removed, with comments.
> 4) No, with comments (comments required).
> 5) Abstain.

On the general question: NO

Various concerns about the technical details in the TR, including the  
extent of coverage (to conform to N1760 section 2.2) and indeed the  
basic design, have been raised on email since the ballot was issued.   
Until these have been resolved by the editorial group my vote is no.

On the particular question of allowing optional dummy arguments: YES

Other comment:  The document is not yet in the format required by ISO/ 
IEC Directives (Part 2, Clauses 6 & 7).


David