Re: Motion P1788/M0061:REvisedFlavorsText -- YES

[Christian Keil <c.keil@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My vote on the motion is YES.

There are however some things I'd like to note:

1) The revised text lists the com decoration to be *required* for a flavor
in several places, while the decoration clause (8) says a flavor *may*
provide it and only *requires* it from all flavors of an implementation
if the implementation provides more than one flavor. Either the current
text or the decoration clause (8) should be changed to be consistent.

2) Subitem (v) of the core specification seems to refer to §7.4 and §7.5,
but doesn't list them explicitly. Adding these references would clarify
the structure further.

3) While not opposing, I'm not sure about the scope of §7.4.3. If the
flavor is a standard flavor it is defined in a later section of the
standard and lists whatever function it requires. If it is a non-standard
flavor, it is presumably a one-implementation-flavor provided in one
implementation, which limits the usability of functions that are
"required in each implementation of that flavor". In short: I'm not sure
if this is a part of the core specification or rather an option for new
flavors to be submitted for inclusion into the standard?


Cheers,

	Christian