From malcolm@nag.co.uk Tue Dec 23 12:58:52 1997 Received: from red.nag.co.uk ([192.156.217.2]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA04456 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:58:50 +0100 Received: from sedi8.nag.co.uk by red.nag.co.uk via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk id AA06430; Tue, 23 Dec 97 11:57:13 GMT Received: by sedi8.nag.co.uk (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @red.nag.co.uk:SC22WG5@dkuug.dk id AA22606; Tue, 23 Dec 97 11:57:09 GMT From: malcolm@nag.co.uk (Malcolm Cohen) Message-Id: <9712231157.AA22606@sedi8.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1478) Edit missing from N1282 (allocatable TR) To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:57:06 +0000 (GMT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1280 Richard Maine wrote: > I noticed one clear omission from the edits. I'm not entirely sure > how much difference this makes for a TR. ... My inclination, if its too > late to get the fix into the TR itself, would be to just let the > correction go into f2k. On the other hand, if the TR can still be > fixed, we might want to do that. I think the DTR has gone forward to JTC1, so I don't think we can do much with it right now. Miles, what is the position on this? I presume we cannot change a DTR after the JTC1 ballot - or are the rules a bit looser for TRs? Craig T. Dedo said: > IMHO, we need to correct this mistake AT ONCE, by whatever means > necessary. We simply cannot wait until F2000 is published. We cannot do anything "AT ONCE", and I am certainly opposed to pulling the TR back at this stage (to go through another N re-ballots, with yet another 12-18 month delay) just because of this. It does not look like a show-stopper to me (if others disagree I guess the JTC1 vote will not be to accept!). If we can correct it between JTC1 approval and publication well and good; if not, it can be handled by the usual erratum procedures. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)