On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> 7649 scshunt 2 I always thought these already ratifie > AGAINST; this doesn't allow for implicit switches, and so I think it > might cause all the old CFJs to spontaneously unjudge themselves, or > something like that
Switches have to be "define[d] as a switch" (2162), so there are no implicit switches (and CFJ judgement is not a switch); further, only documents purporting to be "the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value" are ratified.
