From JLS@liverpool.ac.uk Mon Aug 3 16:06:00 1992 Received: from danpost2.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA27944; Mon, 3 Aug 92 16:06:00 +0200 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by danpost2.uni-c.dk (5.65/1.34) id AA15750; Mon, 3 Aug 92 16:05:55 +0200 Message-Id: <9208031405.AA15750@danpost2.uni-c.dk> Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 0790; Mon, 03 Aug 92 16:06:31 DNT Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5355; Mon, 03 Aug 92 16:06:31 DNT Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8299; Mon, 03 Aug 92 15:05:44 BST Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6846; Mon, 03 Aug 92 15:05:43 BST Via: UK.AC.LIV.IBM; 3 AUG 92 15:05:37 BST Received: from JLS@UK.AC.LIVERPOOL by MAILER(4.4.t); 3 Aug 1992 13:02:09 BST Date: Mon, 03 Aug 92 12:25:41 BST From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Re: (SC22.107) Interpretations To: Follett RH , SC22 members , SC22/WG5 members In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:14:19 EDT X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Dear Bob, at the recent WG5 meeting a number of us spent some time carefully reading the draft JTC1 directives. As far as we could see it would be perfectly possible to use the rapid process technical corrigendum procedures to publish a defect correction document containing clarifications(interpretations) editorial corrections(fixing typos), and technical corrections(technical corrigenda) all in a single document. The implication of our reading was that the first two would not be published if they were the only responces to defect reports. In the case of interpretation only the directives state that no action is required not that no action is permitted and since the document that gets published requires the defect report, the editor group response and the technical corrigendum if any to be published for each defect it would appear that the comment that interpretations alone dont get published is simply one of practical utility. Provided there are defects of sufficient seriousness that technical corrigenda are necessary to fix them then editorial fixes and interpretations could be parcelled together for publication. I think it was also the consensus view that unless a defect correction document containing technical corrigenda was published rapidly once the technical corrections had been agree at the WG level, there was little point in publishing them at all. The clear intent of these procedures was to forstall possibly divergent implementations of a standard because of faults in the original IS. Given the complexity of our type of standards defects are inevitable and the proposed mechanism seems to be fairly well suited to handling there correction. WG5 has therefore resolved to structure its maintenance procedures along the lines contained in the JTC1 draft directives and would propose publishing annual defect correction documents containing technical corrigenda as long as the need continues. I should point out that this is a personal summary of the WG5 meeting wrt this question. It has not been reviewed by WG5. Lawrie