James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
[snip]
That would be bug compatibility then. Expect an ed.note in 09 unless
this is resolved.
How about a Pace instead? That would be far more productive than an ed note.
A pace to rectify a pace (which might go to another rev) doesn't strike
me as productive. To be more precise - I was referring to the situation
where this pace or some future rev is accepted with examples that have
author data auto-magically appearing. Calling that out in a note seems
reasonable. You said the matter's "orthogonal", which I interpreted as
"won't address here" - my apologies if I've misunderstood you.
cheers
Bill
