On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Charles Walker<charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Evidence: > R105 states: > > A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an > existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, > but any other variation does.
Well, this might mean that even if the proposal in the pool is malformed it would have the desired effect anyway, but I'm required to distribute it in the form it actually has so the CFJ is relevant to my recordkeeping.
