From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Wed Apr 21 16:04:07 2010
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 19574C4E9FA; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:04:07 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from gloin.rl.ac.uk (gloin.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.201])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5BFC178DA
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:04:01 +0200 (CET DST)
X-RAL-MFrom: <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
X-RAL-Connect: <jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]>
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202])
	by gloin.rl.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o3LE3p2r001512;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:03:51 +0100
Received: from jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9049056255;
	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:03:51 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4BCF05C7.50409@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:03:51 +0100
From: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
Reply-To: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc10 SeaMonkey/1.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Responding to the ballot on N1814
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.399 : ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 130.246.135.201
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

WG5,

The four of us were charged with the responsibility of deciding on the final
form of the FDIS, which is N1826. Details of the changes made with respect to 
N1814 are given in N1827. We took account of all the comments in the ballot and 
a few very minor further comments that came after the deadline for the vote. We 
decided to make no change to the standard in response to Bob Corbett's NO vote. 
  The issue he raised is not of sufficiently significant concern to warrant 
further delay in publication of the revised standard, and can be handled by the 
normal interpretation process.

John, Dan, Malcolm, and Van.