Thanks will pass this point on regarding process. Regarding Eric's
point, that is up to the TC to decide.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Apr 30, 2007, at 3:36 PM, ext Scott Cantor wrote:
>> "(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
>
>
