CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0067-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0067-1.txt	2008/06/15 05:47:39	1.7
+++ ai05s/ai05-0067-1.txt	2008/06/16 05:33:09	1.8
@@ -1527,3 +1527,39 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008  1:42 AM
+
+> We've worked hard to ensure that these two are always equivalent, and 
+> this wording needs to reflect that. We probably need to add: "... is 
+> *null record* {or is *others* => <> with no associated components}."
+
+Why not just say "unless the type is a null extension"?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008  2:01 AM
+
+I was thinking there was some reason for this to be syntactical. If not,
+"unless the type of the extension aggregate is a null extension" would
+work. (I think it is necessary to identify which type, because it isn't
+clear whether we're talking about the type of the ancestor part or the
+type of the aggregate as a whole. The first reference can afford to be
+sloppy (either works), but this one cannot.)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008  2:32 AM
+
+Just because a type is a null extension, the extension aggregate might
+still have lots of components specified, since the ancestor part need
+not be of the immediate parent type, but may be a more distant ancestor.
+
+I think you could say something like "... unless there are no components
+needed in the record_component_association_list of the extension
+aggregate," since that is exactly when *null record* is allowed.
+
+****************************************************************
+