<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Nelson, Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com" target="_blank">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">> > An implementation should only claim to support an attribute-token with no<br>
> > attribute-namespace if it follows the behavior specified by a draft of the<br>
> > C++ standard or of a technical specification produced by ISO/IEC<br>
> > JTC1/SC22/WG21. An implementation should only claim to support an<br>
> > attribute-token with an attribute-namespace if it follows the behavior<br>
> > specified by the vendor identified by the attribute-namespace.<br>
<br>
> > [OPEN QUESTION: Do we want to provide recommendations like this last<br>
> > paragraph at all? If so, should we list the currently-know<br>
> > attribute-namespaces? Having a centralized list of them is useful, and this<br>
> > seems like a good place to maintain that list. Would it be in-scope for the<br>
> > features SG to maintain a list of the known vendor extension attributes?]<br>
<br>
> I don't think the last paragraph is needed, not that I'd object if someone<br>
> really wanted it.<br>
<br>
</div>To me, this seems so obvious that I would really hope we wouldn't have to<br>
say it.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So far, this sounds like consensus for dropping that paragraph. (I'm fine with that, by the way.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">
> I don't think maintaining a list of known vendor extension attributes is in<br>
> the charter of SG10. If one were maintained, would it be just the names,<br>
> the names and the syntax, or the names, syntax, and semantics?<br>
<br>
</div>I agree with John: we don't want to keep track of all the vendor extension<br>
attributes. But I think it would be great if we could maintain a table that<br>
correlated attribute-namespace names with URLs at which vendors document<br>
their list of extended attributes. (Assuming, of course, that vendors<br>
actually use attribute-namespaces.)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like the idea of this table. Do you think this should be included in our standing document, or hosted elsewhere on <a href="http://isocpp.org">isocpp.org</a>, or somewhere else? I think a separate page on <a href="http://isocpp.org">isocpp.org</a> would probably be appropriate.</div>
</div></div></div>