From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jul 14 18:18:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 1D3C735689D; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:18:52 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 668 seconds by postgrey-1.33 at www5.open-std.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:18:50 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 C54BC356894 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:18:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Trace: 636809042/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/88.104.255.214/None/d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 88.104.255.214 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: d.muxworthy@bcs.org.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-Originating-Country: GB/UNITED KINGDOM X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.753.1) X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApUCAIoTH05YaP/W/2dsb2JhbAAMR5hXmG/CJIVbXwSXVotg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,529,1304290800"; d="scan'208";a="636809042" Received: from 88-104-255-214.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.2]) ([88.104.255.214]) by smtp.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2011 17:07:25 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: <20110711161150.84E00356883@www.open-std.org> References: <20110711161150.84E00356883@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Muxworthy Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.4489) Ballot on N1866 Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:09:13 +0100 To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) 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. My vote is 4) Abstain. Because of holidays I have not had chance to read N1866 in detail. I agree that as an SC22 document it needs a different title page and I agree with many of Reinhold's editorial comments. David