Shock's interpretation seems logical to me. For example: how can a meter still read current after an overcurrent situation has blown the fuse?
So I actually found an older UK version of the standard, and while it doesn't really match what I was saying, it doesn't match a lot of other things that I see elsewhere--for example there is no CAT I. I think we all have been doing too much thinking with too little information. So I'll have to peruse it a bit.
As far as current and other issues, I think (but may be wrong) that it goes like this:
The meter must withstand it's RATED voltage (
not transients or overvoltages) being applied to any terminal that is compatible with the same leads as the voltage inputs. That means ohms, capacitance, diode, current, whatever the meter has. The available fault current in the case of the current ranges is listed by CAT level but there are enough conditions there that I'll just say it is very high. "Withstand" seems to mean (again, subject to more reading) that it 1) doesn't blow up or catch on fire
and 2) it continue to be able to "indicate the presence of hazardous
voltages" --not 'work properly'--presumably when the operator actually changes the switch and/or leads to a voltage range.
In addition, the meter is tested
in the voltage mode and overvoltages (the section I quoted) and transients are applied. There again, it is required that the meter not pose a hazard and in the section I quoted, continue to operate enough to again, "indicate the presence of hazardous
voltages". In what I was reading, I could not find a clear, express requirement that the meter needed to survive the transient testing and still read voltages. However, in newer standards there is a CAT I (unless Fluke et. al. are just making that up!) and it is pretty clear that there is no real arc-flash or significant fire hazard in CAT I. The primary emphasis of this standard does not seem to be the arc-flash vaporized meters that we all discuss--there are other issues too, like leakage, shock hazards and the ability of the meter to....."indicate the presence of hazardous
voltages" . It would seem silly to me that the meter would be deemed 'safe' when a small ESD charge could damage it in a way so that 1000VDC reads 0V or some other low voltage.
Anyway, I'll keep searching for the latest standard because I'm pretty sure that things have changed.