ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18/WG8 N1713 Page 1 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18/WG8 N1713 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18/WG8 Document Processing and Related Communication— Document Description and Processing Languages Title: Response to Japanese request for status of SGML review (N1675) Source: WG8/SGML RG Project: 1.18.15.1 Project editor: Charles F. Goldfarb Status of Approved by WG8 document: Requested action: For information Date 21 April 1994 Distribution: WG8 and liaisons References: Supersedes: Response to Japanese request for status of SGML review (N1675) The SGML Rapporteur Group members present at the Alexandria, Va. meeting have responded to the comments contained in the submission from the Japanese member body (N1675) as follows: Comments received from Member Bodies are numbered and distributed to members and correspondents of WG8. Comments created or collected by individual WG experts are numbered as and when they are formally submitted. At that time, they are also distributed to members and correspondents of WG8. All comments formally submitted by Member Bodies or individual experts have been distributed to all members and correspondents of WG8. 1. While WG8 appreciates the value that a precise schedule would have for planning purposes, ISO directives do not require a schedule for the type of review we are conducting. This is fortunate because we do not believe such a schedule would have sufficient likelihood of accuracy to make it beneficial, for the following reasons: It is impossible to predict the number of comments we may receive in the future. 2. Substantial analysis of most comments is required to estimate the amount of time that resolution of it might require. 3. We are committed to a complete clause-by-clause review of ISO 8879. This review could generate requirements for changes in addition to those suggested by comments. The number, complexity, and severity of such changes cannot be estimated prior to the review. 4. We are committed to complete backward compatibility for existing documents. This requirement places significant demands on the wording of any agreed changes to make sure that we do not inadvertently modify an existing provision of the standard. The time required for such rewording cannot be predicted. SGML is a very successful standard with a large installed base. As a result, we cannot treat this work the same as a New Work Item Proposal. Accuracy and quality have to be considered more important than speed because of the possibility of adverse impact to existing users. Further information about the review procedures and schedules can be found in the Second Interim Report on the SGML Review (WG8 N1701).