Re: Limited_Forward_Compatibility

> A quick to-the-point answer (since it's Easter morning)....
> 
> Although I'm not convinced it's a good use of our resources, I'm okay
> with some fallback mechanism being specified AT RISK through the end of
> CR, but I think we should say in the spec that if the fallback
> mechanisms ends up not included, PRD producers will be told they SHOULD
> translate to Core those rulesets which can be translated to core without
> a significant observable change in semantics.  (I'm not sure the best
> way to say that, technically, in out specs, but I hope you know what I
> mean.)

Also, I think it does need to be FPWD before we publish the others at
LCWD, so the reference can be made for conformance (and marked at risk,
etc).  I guess your current wiki page could be made publishable in the
next week.

     -- Sandro