Minutes of the 5th June 2025 Teleconference Austin-1458 Page 1 of 1 Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. 7th June 2025 Attendees: Andrew Josey, The Open Group (partial) Nick Stoughton, USENIX, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 OR Geoff Clare, The Open Group Haelwenn Monnier, The Open Group Mark Brown Eric Blake, Red Hat, The Open Group OR Apologies Eric Ackermann, CISPA * General business We confirmed the calendar for upcoming meetings, the next meeting is June 12th, followed by June 19th. Andrew noted he has provided the files as requeste for the IEEE PSDO submission and that was in process. * Open Business Bug 1876: clarify, whether a trap action that is executed from a OPEN context where set -e is ignored, would have set -e ignored, too https://www.austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1876 Andrew took an action to ask shell developers to comment on this issue. (completed by sending an email to the reflector: austin-group-l:archive/latest/37925). Bug 864: Insufficient specification of storage requirements for synchronization objects https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=864 AI: Andrew to contact Rich Felker to determine whether or not items 1 an 4 have been resolved by section 2.9.9 and to get suggested wording for changes to address items 2 and 3. The action was completed, but no response received as yet. Bug 1904: LC_TIME era start_date (and end_date) possibly mis-specified https://www.austingroupbugs.net/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1904 This was discussed during the 2025-02-13 meeting: Historically, there was no year 0 and the standard is worded to reflect this fact. Is this what implementation actually do? Andrew had completed an action to ask for input on what other implementations do and some feedback has been received so need to return to this on a future call. * Current Business Bug 1924: New word splitting requirements inappropriate in locales with non-self-synchronising character encodings https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1924 Previously resolved as: Accepted as marked, resolved, tc1-2024 tag Reopened. We revisited this bug as Bugnotes 7186, 7187, 7188, 7189, 7190 & 7191 were added after this bug was resolved. In the June 5, 2025 teleconference the issues raised since the original resolution were discussed. The following is a new proposed resolution but the issue is being left open for feedback. After page 79 line 2388 section 3 Definitions, add: 3.328 Self-synchronizing Character Encoding A character encoding in which no contiguous subset (other than the encoding of each character) of bytes from the encoding of any one character or two adjacent characters can also represent the encoding of any valid character on its own. and renumber the later subsections. On page 120 line 3840 section 6.2, change: Likewise, the byte values used to encode , , , and shall not occur as part of any other character in any locale. to: Likewise, the byte values used to encode , , , , , , , and shall not occur as part of any other character in any locale. On page 2481 line 80454 section 2.5.3 Shell Variables (IFS), after: If the value of IFS includes any bytes that do not form part of a valid character, the results of field splitting, expansion of '*', and use of the read utility are unspecified. add a sentence: If the current locale's character encoding is not self-synchronizing and the value of IFS includes any character for which the byte encoding can overlap with the byte encoding of any other sequence of characters, the results of field splitting, expansion of '*', and use of the read utility are unspecified. and two small-font notes: Note: The UTF-8 encoding is self-synchronizing, meaning that no character's encoding can be confused with any other sequence of characters, and thus all characters are safe to use in IFS when the current locale uses this encoding. Note: [xref to XBD 6.2 Character Encoding] specifies a set of characters from the portable character set whose byte values are not allowed to occur as part of any other character in any locale. These characters are safe to use in IFS with any locale. Bug 1926: Nobody has mistaken bytes for bits when deciding value for GETENTROPY_MAX do we? https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1926 Open. Next Steps We will start on bug 1926 next time The next calls are on Thu 2025-06-12 (WEBEX meeting - general bugs) Thu 2025-06-19 (WEBEX meeting - general bugs) The calls are for 90 minutes Calls are anchored on US time. (8am Pacific) Please check the calendar invites for dial in details. Bugs are at: https://austingroupbugs.net An etherpad is usually up for the meeting, with a URL using the date format as below: https://posix.rhansen.org/p/20xx-mm-dd (For write access this uses The Open Group single sign on, for those individuals with gitlab.opengroup.org accounts. Please contact Andrew if you need to be setup)