> "(gg) "Substantive Change" is a change to a specification that would
require
> a compliant application or implementation to be modified or rewritten in
> order to remain compliant."
Yeah, I just checked it.
> I'm not sure that the modification of schema as suggested would "require"
> compliant implementations to change. Indeed, I'm pretty sure none of the
> implementations that have passed through the testing program enforce
schema
> validation, and no one has complained about this particular issue.
Possibly true. But you could argue that if the errata is addressing a part
of the spec where conformant behavior was essentially impossible to
determine, that any change made would by definition be a change.
Regardless, I think the definition is broken. Conformance criteria should
reference errata if you're going to make errata serve its full purpose.
-- Scott
