From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Jul 22 18:15:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo2 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo2@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 51CF51211C; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:15:28 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9431113B6 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:15:25 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j6MGBbwE031712 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:15:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from rich_maine@mail.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:06:59 -0700 Received: from [130.134.138.171] (viruswall.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.64.54]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:06:58 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <20050715165608.87A68152F4@open-std.org> References: <20050715165608.87A68152F4@open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <77c02cb774ab61c118e1212206c26193@nasa.gov> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard E Maine Subject: Re: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3303) Draft report to SC22 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:06:54 -0700 To: WG5 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Sorry to be a bit slow in responding. I've been on vacation for 3 weeks (in the UK). On Jul 15, 2005, at 9:55 AM, John Reid wrote: > I have prepared a draft report to SC22 > > Richard Maine: Please check what I say re the final publication of > F2003. Looks ok to me. There were also other related problems, but I see nothing wrong with what you said. Elaborating on every detail would probably make it overly long. The related problems that I recall were 1. The "hot links" that were in the PDF that I sent to ISO were not in the version published by ISO. This resulted in several user complaints. 2. *AFTER* the standard was officially published, ISO asked me about whether I could produce a revised PDF (I think it was in order to get the hot links back in, but it might have been for something else - my memory of the exact reason is a little hazy). I recall being annoyed that they now were asking for exactly what I had wanted to do earlier - for me to send them a revised PDF - but that their lack of prior coordination made it impractical when they finally asked for it. By then it was impractical because ISO had effectively "forked" the document and everything they had done in the 2 months before publication would have had to be redone. I mention these related issues just for your information - not to suggest that you should elaborate on them in your report. I regard them as elaboration on the issues that you mention already. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain