From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk  Wed Sep 10 19:05:37 2003
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h8AH5bX0017198
	for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:05:37 +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 h8AH5XCp017193
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:05:34 +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 h8AH5go16379
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:05:42 +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 SAA11176
	for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:14:40 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <3F5F5CC1.8010902@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:17:53 +0100
From: John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
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: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2990) More typos
References: <200309091852.h89Iqc1o005505@dkuug.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Precedence: bulk



Michael Ingrassia wrote:
>>[61:2-3] Delete "It ... type" (Edit for [59:15] in 03-224 was deleted from
>>03-224r1.  Does anybody remember why?  This sentence appears to be important.)
> 
> 
> I don't have my notes with me, so discretion says maybe I'd better remain
> silent --  but I seem to recall that there was a conflict, one part of the
> standard specifying public accessibility when no explicit accessibility
> statement, this page specifying "match the parent" accessibility in the
> same circumstance.  Conflict had to be resolved one way or the other.

I'd appreciate hearing where the rule on the accessibility of a parent 
component is given. I have checked 03-224r1 and it gives no clues.

Cheers,

John.



