🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <64919@sun.uucp> dgh%dgh@Sun.COM (David Hough) writes:
>I comment in detail upon the following aspects of the proposed standard...

One very important thing to be aware of is that X3J11 intends to get
the proposed standard wrapped up (formally adopted) as soon as possible.
When the third-round comments are reviewed at the September meeting, it
is highly likely that all suggestions for substantive changes to the
proposed standard will be rejected unless they remedy a proven serious
deficiency.  The reason is that any non-editorial change would necessitate
yet another public review, therefore delay in publishing the official
standard.  This process could go on forever, but there is a strong desire
to adopt a "good enough" standard in a timely fashion rather than working
toward a "perfect" standard that is too late to matter.  Many of us feel
that the current draft is "good enough", perhaps modulo editorial nits.

I don't mean to discourage comments on the draft; however, you should be
advised that you'll need some extremely strong arguments for making any
substantive changes.  Examples showing that the current draft is badly
broken would help.