From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Mon Jul 11 18:11:50 2011
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 122C6356886; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:11:49 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 577 seconds by postgrey-1.33 at www5.open-std.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:11:48 CEST
Received: from mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.tiscali.co.uk [212.74.100.55])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9337356693
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:11:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Trace: 635447940/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/85.211.117.19/None/John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 85.211.117.19
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk
X-SMTP-AUTH: 
X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM
X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAOQdG05V03UT/2dsb2JhbAAMR9EunxSGOgSSVIRwi1g
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,515,1304290800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="635447940"
Received: from 85-211-117-19.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.4]) ([85.211.117.19])
  by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2011 17:02:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4E1B1E80.8030805@stfc.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:02:08 +0100
From: John Reid <John.Reid@stfc.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Ballot on N1866
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Please answer the following question "Is N1866 ready for forwarding to SC22
as the PDTR?" in one of these ways.

1) Yes.
2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
3) No, for the following reasons.
4) Abstain.

This is an individual vote. Please send your vote to sc22wg5@open-std.org
to arrive by 9 a.m. (UK time) on July 15th 2011.


My vote is

2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.

There are many places where "descriptor" rather than "C descriptor" is 
used. I recommend that each be considered for being changed to "C 
descriptor".

John.