RE: LC54 Proposal

Dave, one more thing:

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 15:31 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > BTW, what happened to the original intention (caught in the issue) of
> > indicating compatibility on interfaces as opposed to services? If you
> > want to go in this direction, wouldn't starting at interface be
> cleaner?
> > 
> 
> I think the group ended up saying that an interface extension is a
> compatible extension.  

Is a text to this effect going to end up in the specification? Are there
minutes out there that reflect the group saying this?

Best regards,

Jacek