Re: Proposed disposition of comments
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:59:44 -0500, Baker wrote:
> Wait a minute ... Look at line 39, page 19 of the balloted draft.
As I mentioned earlier:
>> One point mentioned by Vincent was 7.1 (d), but that's in a summary,
>> with details given later, so its not a requirement on its own.
> Please remind me where the inconsistency is.
It's 8.3, which explicitly makes "com" optional in a single-flavor
context.
Michel.
P.S. I see that my post did reach the listserver, and just now
(almost two hours late) I received the reflection.
---Sent: 2015-04-16 16:24:08 UTC