(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4224) What shall we do with the broken feature?

[David Muxworthy]

On 17 Mar 2010, at 08:19, Malcolm Cohen wrote:

> How should we address the problem?
> (1) fix the DIS by deleting the feature (I don't think we have a  
> mandate for that though);
> (2) fix the DIS by changing the wording;
> (3) leave it to be fixed later via interpretation processing (other  
> than the nitpick which should be done anyway).
>
> Comments?

If there is a good chance that the problem could be fixed at the June  
J3 meeting (by either (1) or (2)) I would vote for doing that and  
having the resulting document checked by the four wise men again.   
The same could apply to any minor technical problem thrown up in the  
current ballot on N1814.  This would delay the standard by four  
months but, apart possibly from attracting the disapprobation of  
SC22, in practice it matters not a jot whether the standard hits the  
bookshops in 2010 or 2011.  I wouldn't want to get into a F8X-style  
slippage of schedules however.
David