From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Thu Sep 11 10:14:53 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h8B8Erh7023417 for sc22wg5-domo; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:14:53 +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 mail22.messagelabs.com (mail22.messagelabs.com [62.231.131.211]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with SMTP id h8B8EaCp023411 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:14:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from malcolm@nag.co.uk) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: malcolm@nag.co.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1063268080!702205 X-StarScan-Version: 5.0.7; banners=nag.co.uk,-,- Received: (qmail 5741 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2003 08:14:40 -0000 Received: from smtp-3.star.net.uk (212.125.75.72) by server-11.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2003 08:14:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 12432 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2003 08:14:40 -0000 Received: from nagmx1.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.231.145.242) by smtp-3.star.net.uk with SMTP; 11 Sep 2003 08:14:40 -0000 Received: from brackley.nag.co.uk (brackley.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.21]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19578 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:14:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from malcolm@localhost) by brackley.nag.co.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) id h8B8Fp003459 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:15:51 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from malcolm) From: Malcolm Cohen Message-Id: <200309110815.h8B8Fp003459@brackley.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2991) More typos To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:15:51 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Van said: >[61:2-3] Delete "It ... type" No, absolutely not. > (Edit for [59:15] in 03-224 was deleted from >03-224r1. Does anybody remember why? This sentence appears to be important.) Yes, I can remember why; it was in two papers, and we did not want the editor to add TWO sentences specifying the accessibility! (And we deleted it from the "editorial" paper, leaving it in the "technical" paper, since it had technical context). Van should be able to remember too, since the other paper was his... Richard Maine commented later: >Van (correctly) points out that I completely misread that one. I >was thinking he was suggesting adding the sentence, as the 03-224 >(which did not pass) asked. Instead, apparently I mistakenly added >it already (I must have been working from a marked up r0 and missed >that change). Van is suggesting that we delete it to correspond >to the 03-224r1, which did pass. > >So I agree that this also is correcting an error that the editor >made. The edit needs to be made for the draft to correspond to >what was passed in meeting 165. No, the editor did not blunder. See 03-237. As Richard commented, this was vigorously debated and consensus reached. That consensus was to insert this statement, not to leave the accessibility unspecified. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________