From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Mon Sep 1 18:14:34 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h81GEYtA076914 for sc22wg5-domo; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:14:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from inf.rl.ac.uk (nfs7.inf.rl.ac.uk [130.246.72.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h81GEOCp076908 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:14:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk) Received: from numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (numerical [130.246.8.23]) by inf.rl.ac.uk (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id h81GET208762 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:14:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from rl.ac.uk (jkr.cse.rl.ac.uk [130.246.9.202]) by numerical.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA09650 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:23:24 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3F53730D.9000409@rl.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:25:49 +0100 From: John Reid Reply-To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: (j3.2003-676) Procedures for Possible Fixes (Was: An incorrect example, and someinterp bait) References: <200308262025.h7QKP5G83223@brackley.nag.co.uk> <3F4BD0C7.8000707@execpc.com> <16203.56549.500091.120828@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Richard Maine wrote: > Craig Dedo writes: > > > Is there any way that we can fix this up and put it into the > > document before we officially send this to WG5 as the FCD? > > We already sent it to WG5, but not "as the FCD". The announcement > that you all read about this was from the WG5 email list. It is WG5 > that sends it to ISO as an FCD. There will be a WG5 ballot on whether > to send this to ISO. > > I suggest that the appropriate mechanism, if you want to make > changes that get into the FCD is to reflect that in the WG5 vote > on forwarding the FCD. I also suggest that such a process be > reserved for serious problems and not be taken as an opportunity > for wordsmithing. I'm not 100% sure that WG5 wants anything at > all other than yes/no from that vote; the farther it is from a > simple yes/no, the more objections I can imagine. I have not studied the particular problem yet, but let us work on the assumption that it is an error in Annex C with a reasonably simple fix. Annex C is not normative. We have not paid the same attention to it as to the normative text, so errors are more likely here. If the error is not fixed a reader may be misled. So I hope someone (Malcolm in this case?) will provide the fix with his or her vote. If it proves non-controversial and we are not flooded with other similar suggestions, I think we should make the change. > (For example, words that have been with us since f77 without > previously generating questions don't strike me as serious problems, > even if the words aren't strictly correct. Nor do obvious omissions > from lists. Debates as to whether "neither" is appropriate to apply > to lists of 3 items aren't even close. Agreed. > Examples as flawed as this one > is might make my personal "cut". All IMO.) Yes! Cheers, John.