FVS Assignment Mismatch Wrapup

I am ready to wrap up our discussion on the over-rides and the mis-matches at 1820, 1828, 182C, 182D, 1835, 1836. I plan to use the DS01 document to communicate to the UTC our suggestions on specifications for the standardized variants that differ from the Chinese Standard.

If there are other burning issues that you want to bring up, please do so now. I think we have seen that there is always going to be further specification that we can do and have to stop someplace. Case in point is Jirimutu's solo word example of DUEGER (as distinct from the suffix form) and the question of how to obtain the proper form for the UE. It is not in the current specification. We are stopping short of a new line-item specification as it will only lead to more. But the four forms as discussed under the OVER-RIDES remain in the document with the main example discussed.

Thank you for the good discussion here,

Received on Saturday, 12 September 2015 09:21:16 UTC