> I was going to suggest the same thing but was worried that folks would
> frown on the idea :) Really though, it may be the best option we have
> at this stage.
I could also be wrong, BTW, about the errata rules. There used to be no
process; now that there is one, what are the constraints for producing one?
I think it makes very little sense to say you can have official errata but
they can't *really* change the spec. Typos happen, you can't expect all of
them to be X number of words away from a MUST.
From a conformance standpoint, it seems reasonable to me that any statement
wrt conformance be applicable to the state of a spec and its errata as of a
certain date.
-- Scott
