Document Number: AUSTIN/33 Title: XCU D1 Aardvark Change Request Report Revision Date: 1999-07-25 Source: Andrew Josey, Chair Action: for review This report contains the dispositions of the aardvark comments submitted against the XCU Draft 1. Aardvark Summary Table ______________________ ERN 1 Accept as marked ERN 2 Accept ERN 3 Accept ERN 4 Duplicate of 1 ERN 5 Accept as marked ERN 6 Accept as marked ERN 7 Reject ERN 8 Accept as marked ERN 9 Accept as marked ERN 10 Accept ERN 11 Accept ERN 12 Accept ERN 13 Accept ERN 14 Accept ERN 15 Accept ERN 16 Accept ERN 17 Reject ERN 18 Reject ERN 19 Accept ERN 20 Duplicate of 21 ERN 21 Accept ERN 22 Accept ERN 23 Accept as marked ERN 24 Accept ERN 25 Accept ERN 26 Accept ERN 27 Accept ERN 28 Accept ERN 29 Accept ERN 30 Accept ERN 31 Accept ERN 32 Accept as marked ERN 33 Duplicate of 34 ERN 34 Accept ERN 35 Accept ERN 36 Accept ERN 37 Accept ERN 38 Accept as marked ERN 39 Accept as marked ERN 40 Accept ERN 41 Accept ERN 42 Accept ERN 43 Reject ERN 44 Accept as marked ERN 45 Accept ERN 46 Accept ERN 47 Accept as marked ERN 48 Accept ERN 49 Accept ERN 50 Accept ERN 51 Accept ERN 52 Accept as marked ERN 53 Duplicate of 54 ERN 54 Accept ERN 55 Duplicate of 56 ERN 56 Accept ERN 57 Accept as marked ERN 58 Accept ERN 59 Accept ERN 60 Accept ERN 61 Accept ERN 62 Accept ERN 63 Accept ERN 64 Accept ERN 65 Accept ERN 66 Accept ERN 67 Accept ERN 68 Reject ERN 69 Accept ERN 70 Duplicate of 69 ERN 71 Accept ERN 72 Accept ERN 73 Accept as marked ERN 74 Accept ERN 75 Accept ERN 76 Accept ERN 77 Accept as marked ERN 78 Accept ERN 79 Accept ERN 80 Accept as marked ERN 81 Accept as marked ERN 82 Accept ERN 83 Accept as marked ERN 84 Accept ERN 85 Reject ERN 86 Accept ERN 87 Accept ERN 88 Accept ERN 89 Accept ERN 90 Accept ERN 91 Accept ERN 92 Accept ERN 93 Accept as marked ERN 94 Accept ERN 95 Accept ERN 96 Accept ERN 97 Accept ERN 98 Accept ERN 99 Reject ERN 100 Accept as marked ERN 101 Accept ERN 102 Accept ERN 103 Accept ERN 104 Accept as marked ERN 105 Reject ERN 106 Accept ERN 107 Accept as marked ERN 108 Accept ERN 109 Accept ERN 110 Accept ERN 111 Accept as marked ERN 112 Accept ERN 113 Accept ERN 114 Reject ERN 115 Accept ERN 116 Accept ERN 117 Reject ERN 118 Accept ERN 119 Accept ERN 120 Accept ERN 121 Accept as marked ERN 122 Accept as marked ERN 123 Accept as marked ERN 124 Duplicate of 119 ERN 125 Accept ERN 126 Accept ERN 127 Accept as marked ERN 128 Accept ERN 129 Accept ERN 130 Accept ERN 131 Accept ERN 132 Accept as marked ERN 133 Accept ERN 134 Accept ERN 135 Accept ERN 136 Accept ERN 137 Accept ERN 138 Accept as marked ERN 139 Duplicate of 138 ERN 140 Accept as marked ERN 141 Accept as marked ERN 142 Accept ERN 143 Accept ERN 144 Accept as marked ERN 145 Accept ERN 146 Accept as marked ERN 147 Accept as marked ERN 148 Accept ERN 149 Accept ERN 150 Accept ERN 151 Accept ERN 152 Accept as marked ERN 153 Reject ERN 154 Accept ERN 155 Reject ERN 156 Accept ERN 157 Accept as marked ERN 158 Accept ERN 159 Accept ERN 160 Accept as marked ERN 161 Accept as marked ERN 162 Accept as marked ERN 163 Accept as marked ERN 164 Accept ERN 165 Accept ERN 166 Accept as marked ERN 167 Accept ERN 168 Accept as marked ERN 169 Accept ERN 170 Reject ERN 171 Reject ERN 172 Duplicate of 170 ERN 173 Accept as marked ERN 174 Reject ERN 175 Accept as marked ERN 176 Accept ERN 177 Duplicate of 170/171 ERN 178 Accept as marked ERN 179 Accept ERN 180 Accept ERN 181 Reject ERN 182 Accept ERN 183 Reject ERN 184 Accept ERN 185 Accept ERN 186 Duplicate of 185 ERN 187 Accept as marked ERN 188 Accept ERN 189 Duplicate of 134 ERN 190 Accept ERN 191 Accept as marked ERN 192 Accept as marked ERN 193 Accept as marked ERN 194 Accept as marked ERN 195 Accept as marked ERN 196 Accept ERN 197 Accept ERN 198 Accept ERN 199 Reject ERN 200 Accept Accept as marked ERN 201 Accept as marked ERN 202 Duplicate of 201 ERN 203 Accept ERN 204 Accept ERN 205 Accept ERN 206 Accept ERN 207 Accept as marked ERN 208 Accept ERN 209 Accept ERN 210 Reject ERN 211 Accept ERN 212 Accept ERN 213 Duplicate of 212 ERN 214 Accept ERN 215 Accept ERN 216 Accept ERN 217 Accept ERN 218 Accept ERN 219 Accept ERN 220 Accept ERN 221 Accept ERN 222 Reject ERN 223 Accept ERN 224 Reject ERN 225 Accept ERN 226 Accept as marked ERN 227 Accept ERN 228 Accept ERN 229 Accept ERN 230 Accept ERN 231 Accept as marked ERN 232 Accept ERN 233 Reject ERN 234 Accept as marked ERN 235 Accept as marked ERN 236 Accept as marked ERN 237 Accept as marked ERN 238 Accept as marked ERN 239 Accept as marked ERN 240 Accept ERN 241 Accept as marked ERN 242 Accept as marked ERN 243 Accept as marked ERN 244 Accept as marked ERN 245 Accept as marked ERN 246 Reject ERN 247 Reject ERN 248 Accept ERN 249 Accept ERN 250 Reject ERN 251 Duplicate of 171 ERN 252 Reject ERN 253 Accept as marked ERN 254 Accept ERN 255 Accept as marked ERN 256 Accept as marked ERN 257 Accept as marked ERN 258 Accept ERN 259 Reject ERN 260 Accept ERN 261 Reject ERN 262 Reject ERN 263 Accept as marked ERN 264 Reject ERN 265 Accept as marked ERN 266 Reject ERN 267 Reject ERN 268 Reject ERN 269 Accept as marked ERN 270 Accept as marked ERN 271 Accept ERN 272 Accept as marked ERN 273 Reject ERN 274 Accept as marked ERN 275 Accept as marked ERN 276 Accept as marked ERN 277 Reject ERN 278 Accept as marked ERN 279 Accept as marked ERN 280 Accept ERN 281 Accept as marked ERN 282 Accept as marked ERN 283 Accept ERN 284 Accept ERN 285 Accept as marked ERN 286 Accept as marked ERN 287 Accept ERN 288 Accept as marked ERN 289 Reject ERN 290 Reject ERN 291 Accept ERN 292 Accept ERN 293 Accept ERN 294 Reject ERN 295 Reject ERN 296 Accept as marked ERN 297 Accept as marked ERN 298 Accept ERN 299 Accept ERN 300 OPEN ERN 301 Accept as marked ERN 302 Accept as marked ERN 303 Accept as marked ERN 304 Reject ERN 305 Accept ERN 306 Reject ERN 307 Accept ERN 308 OPEN ERN 309 Accept as marked ERN 310 Accept as marked ERN 311 Accept as marked ERN 312 Accept ERN 313 Reject ERN 314 Reject ERN 315 Accept as marked ERN 316 Accept as marked ERN 317 Reject ERN 318 Accept ERN 319 Duplicate of 317 ERN 320 Accept as marked ERN 321 Accept ERN 322 Accept as marked ERN 323 Accept as marked ERN 324 OPEN ERN 325 Reject ERN 326 Reject ERN 327 Accept ERN 328 Accept as marked ERN 329 Accept ERN 330 Accept as marked ERN 331 Accept ERN 332 Accept ERN 333 Duplicate of 332 ERN 334 Accept ERN 335 OPEN ERN 336 Reject ERN 337 Accept as marked ERN 338 Accept ERN 339 Duplicate of 338 ERN 340 Reject ERN 341 Accept as marked ERN 342 OPEN ERN 343 Accept as marked ERN 344 Accept ERN 345 Accept as marked ERN 346 Accept as marked ERN 347 Accept ERN 348 Accept ERN 349 Accept as marked ERN 350 Reject* ERN 351 Accept ERN 352 Accept as marked ERN 353 Reject ERN 354 Reject* ERN 355 OPEN ERN 356 Accept ERN 357 Reject ERN 358 Accept as marked ERN 359 Accept ERN 360 Accept ERN 361 Accept as marked ERN 362 Reject ERN 363 Accept as marked ERN 364 Accept as marked ERN 365 Accept as marked ERN 366 Accept as marked ERN 367 Reject ERN 368 Accept as marked ERN 369 Accept ERN 370 Accept as marked ERN 371 Accept ERN 372 Accept as marked ERN 373 Accept as marked ERN 374 Accept ERN 375 OPEN ERN 376 Reject DETAILED DISPOSITIONS _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 1 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 373) [DWC-XCU-140] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accepted and addressed as part of project planning part of the meeting. See the meeting minutes and project schedule for more information. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: (Lack of time.) Given the numerous editorial and technical problems I have found while reviewing this draft (as noted in my other comments and objections), I have not had enough time to review the entire document. Note that the following objections were found as a result of tracking down problems found earlier. They do not imply that the rest of the draft up to those points have been reviewed. Action: Please review the rest of the draft (from the description of the env utility in Chapter 4 through the end of the draft) for problems similar to those described in my editorial comments DWC-XCU-1 and DWC-XCU-3 and in my comments DWC-XCU-21 and DWC-XCU-97 and review the rationale moved into this draft from POSIX.2 to be sure that it is still current. Allow a longer review period for the next draft. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 2 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 234) [DWC-XCU-1] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: (varying styles of -) In the discussion of default behavior in OPTIONS subsections in Section 1.10 on P19, L536 and L537 you use an em dash or an en dash to denote options and the "--" operand used to separate options from operands. On P19, L542 you use a thin dash. In most of the utility descriptions, you also use a thin dash. The description of the unset special built-in on P121 uses the wide dash consistently, except on P121, L4073. All places in the draft that use "-" as a lead-in to an option and all uses of the "--" operand should use the same wide dashes that are used on P19, L536 and P121, L4052. Action: Globally change all this dashes in the draft used to demarcate options, in the "--" operand, and used in other places in commands to match the dash characters used on P19, L536 and on P121, L4075. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 3 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 10) [DT-XCU-6] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note that no specific action is specified for this ERN, assume covered elsewhere) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Ancient history: in the intervening 10-15 years, some of the rationale has gone stale, and should simply be deleted (or significantly rewritten to actually contribute to the standard of today). I've flagged these as simply "Ancient History" with an action of Delete, but as above, I'm flexible. In general (and I didn't mark all of these by any means) discussions of the form "the Korn shell did this and the System V shell did that" and "BSD...System...that" are not very interesting at this remove, and should be deleted. (The words "Korn" and "BSD" and "System V" should appear in NO normative (or possible to confuse with normative) text.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 4 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 5) [DT-XCU-1] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_1 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: Schedule: It took me roughly 50 hours to review this document and prepare my objections. XSI, being larger, took longer, and there was XBD. Let's assume 120 hours total effort, and I can't say I did as good a job as I would have liked. The draft was ready roughly 6 weeks before the deadline. That's 20 hours a week spent reviewing the draft, which given that most of us have "real jobs" to perform as well is simply too much. The next draft will probably be much larger (and much changed) so for a while at least things will NOT get easier with each draft. The reviewers need more time (or at least I do) to do a quality job, at least if it's not their full-time job. Action: Make the draft available MUCH earlier (say 10 or better 15 weeks). I know, some will procrastinate to the last minute anyway, but it at least makes it possible to do a good job without exhausting the reviewers and irritating their families. I also recognize that this will put a crimp into the planned schedule, but I suspect it's a "pay me now or pay me later". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 5 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 7) [DT-XCU-3] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Agree that the text does need careful review, especially the shell command language chapter where the base document has taken much rationale from POSIX.2 and put it into the the normative text at the moment. This chapter will be specifically reworked for the next draft, and the default approach will be to try and follow POSIX.2 for the divider between normative and informative text. In general other cases will be taken individually. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: The original POSIX.2 was very careful to separate rationale from normative text. This draft has taken POSIX.2 rationale, scrambled it with the normative text, and created a document that's not really a standard. I don't object to the inclusion of explanatory materials, but it needs to be absolutely clear what text is intended as normative, and what text is not. 1) I have noticed a goodly number of places where this appears to have happened. They're listed simply as line number ranges below. However, I'm quite sure I haven't caught all of them. 2) The action is quite simple, if arduous: compare all text in this document with the corresponding .2 text: - If it was rationale, delete it in the normative sections of this document. (Make sure the deleted text appears as rationale.) - If it's new text, determine of it's rationale (or explanation/example) and move it appropriately. - (It's perfectly reasonable to propose something that was rationale be made into normative text, but that's an exception.) In the list below, if there's a 2d column, it indicates where the moved rationale is repeated in the RATIONALE section. The absence of a 2d column simply indicates I didn't notice it. I'm quite sure I didn't catch all instances of this. 1228-1241 1331-1333 1342-1346 (Redundant, but maybe not a copy.) 1367-1383 (Should be EXAMPLE). 1406-1408 1421-1423 1442-1443 1449-1450 1590-1591 1690-1709 (s.b. Example?) 1736-1748 1749-1750 1764-1765 1754-1757 1766-1769 1779-1782 With much earlier text; may be OK? 1783-1790 1892-1895 Mostly, rat is redundant, but needs thought. 1945-1962 1992-1999 s.b. Example. 2397-2415 s.b. Example. 2498-2501 2692-2695 2691-2700 2719-2721 2725-2726 2759-2762 2774-2777 2836-2837 2928-2929 3191-3196 3206-3211 3197-3199 3232-3239 3339-3341 3373-3375 3694-3695 3710-3711 3813 3909 3990-3991 4025-4026 9991-9992 10056-10057 12637-12640 13397-13400 14021-14025 14034-14036 15620-15624 15636-15638 19987-19991 20037-20043 (Parts of the latter still apply.) 20684 20811 28686 20816 20690 20840 21787 21823 22598 22609 23391 23428 25669 25680 26591 27098 Action: Cull duplicates (and search for more). Be sure normative text is clearly normative. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 6 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 6) [DT-XCU-2] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The issue was acknowledged by the review group and will be discussed as part of the style discussions that are ongoing. Its anticipated that this issue will be addressed in the next draft and we look for further feedback at that time. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: It's difficult to be "polite" under the circumstances, but I'll do the best I can: I find the quality of the the editorial work in XCU to be less than impressive. The number of mechanically applied changes that were not checked for making sense, the number of typos in what purports to be a fairly mature document, the number of places where changes were made without thought (in particular the massively long list about redundant rationale below) made doing an already arduous and time consuming task all that much more difficult. In addition, this document needs to be compared against the POSIX approved .2 standards (and XSH against .1, and XBD against both) to determine what additional omissions or unflagged changes beyond those noted here (or in other ballots) have occurred. I have not done so, simply because the time involved is huge, given the number of gratuitous changes made to the original .2 text. (E.g. font changes (many done wrong) that have seriously compromised the readability of the original, particularly w.r.t. the use of the constant width font.) (The objection I recently submitted against XBD about the reservation of -W shows how critical that comparison is to the continued credibility of this standard!) One of the objectives I completely missed this time was going through all the marginal notations, and deciding which way I think they should be resolved for the final document. This is a task that needs to be parceled out to as many members of the Austin group as possible, since if done well it only need be done once. Action: Assign comparison team to next draft, to check accuracy of prior standard text. (If its determined that shalls have to be restored, it may make sense to postpone this until that task has been accomplished.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 7 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 8) [DT-XCU-4] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject___X_ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is rejected as there is no specific action, as the action says its assumed this is covered elsewhere. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: There are a number of places where there were battles of historical usage between the BSD and System V camps. The competitive landscape has changed a lot in the 10 to 15 years since these decisions were originally made. I don't myself know what the current status might be on many of these, but they should be reevaluated to determine if a stronger standard (and thus one more useful to programmers) is now possible. I've filed short "is it time to..." objections at those places I noticed where topics should be re-opened. Unless I explicitly say so, I don't have a strong opinion on which way it should go. Note also that this has already been (rather presumptively) done by the inclusion of System V features in this draft. Some I find reasonable changes, and have not commented upon. However, I have objected to others, PARTICULARLY those where there was a good reason (not "we can't reach a compromise") for excluding the feature in the original POSIX.2. Action: Taken in other objections, but there are probably more I missed. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 8 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 9) [DT-XCU-5] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The concerns have been duly noted and the work is in progress. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: Related to the above: there are places where the rationale is now nonsense (it contradicts the main body). Where I've noted those (without other comment) I'm objecting to the inconsistency. However, the other Austin Group members should consider using those as flags to determine if they agree with the change implied at the marked point. Although as a matter of form, I recommend deleting the inconsistent rationale, deleting the change that makes it inconsistent would equally satisfy my objection. (As would a lot of other things.) Action: Austin group members note possible concerns. Delete nonsense rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 9 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 235) [DWC-XCU-2] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept as action below and also delete "and functions" on line 206 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 9-12 Line: 204,214,226,235-236,308,317 Section: 1.6.2,1.6.2. Problem: (Relationship to Other Documents) In the rest of this document set, references to documents in the set are listed as "this document", "XBD specification", "XCU specification", or "XSH specification". But, in these sections you refer to "POSIX Shell and Utilities" instead. The use should be consistent throughout the set. Action: Change "conforming to POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P9, L204 to "conforming to this document". Change "processes in POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P9, L214 to "processes in this document". Change "conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities systems" on P9, L226 to "systems conforming to this document". Change "a conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities implementation" on P10, L235- 236 to "an implementation conforming to this document". Change "conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities implementations" on P11, L308 to "implementations conforming to this document". Change "POSIX Shell and Utilities conformant systems" on P12, L317 to "systems conforming to this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 10 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 236) [DWC-XCU-3] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 14 Line: 408 Section: 1.8 Problem: (Utility Limits) In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. This is a global issue and should be corrected each time it happens. Later editorial comments will note the places I have found, but please correct any other places I miss. Action: Change "see getconf" on P14, L408 to "see getconf on page 417". Make similar corrections to other places in this draft that are of the same form. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 11 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 237) [DWC-XCU-4] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 20 Line: 622-623 Section: 1.10 Problem: (Utility Description Defaults: ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES) The XSI marking and the shaded text that goes along with it should appear on the same line. Action: Move the XSI margin marking on P20, L622 down one line to be on the same line as the shaded "NLSPATH" text. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 12 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 238) [DWC-XCU-5] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 28 Line: 870 Section: 2.1.2 Problem: (Documentation) I don't believe you need a cross reference to the subsection you're in. Action: Change "this subsection (Section 2.1.2 on page 27)" on P28, L870 to "this subsection". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 13 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 239) [DWC-XCU-6] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 33,34 Line: 1065,1066,1069,1070,1075,1109,1110,1113,1114 Section: 2.2.1,2.2.4 Problem: (Strictly Conforming POSIX & XSI Shell and Utilities Applications) Most of the sentences in the numbered lists in these two sections (2.2.1 and 2.2.4) are missing the terminating periods. Action: Add a period to the end of P33, L1065. Add a period to the end of P33, L1066. Add a period to the end of P33, L1069. Add a period to the end of P33, L1070. Add a period to the end of P33, L1075. Add a period to the end of P34, L1109. Add a period to the end of P34, L1110. Add a period to the end of P34, L1113. Add a period to the end of P34, L1114. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 14 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 240) [DWC-XCU-7] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 37 Line: 1137-1139 Section: 3.1 Problem: (Shell Introduction) The paragraph on P37, L1137-1139 was rationale in POSIX.2 and is also included in rationale here on L1161-1163. It doesn't need to be here twice. Action: Delete P37, L1137-1139. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 15 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 11) [DT-XCU-7] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 37 Line: 1138 Section: 3.1 Problem: English. Action: "as the first line" -> "as the first two characters of the file". (Else it implies that it's the whole first line we're talking about.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 16 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 241) [DWC-XCU-8] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 38 Line: 1199 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: (Double-quotes) A ( doesn't terminate a $(. Action: Change '"("' on P38, L1199 to '")"'. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 17 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 12) [DT-XCU-8] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This feature is felt to be widely in use in applications. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 39 Line: 1206 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: Someone's gotta ask: is it time to declare backtick obsolescent? It's not time to delete it yet, but warning that it should no longer be used is in the best interest of the industry. See also 1910, 1960 Action: Declare obsolescent. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 18 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 13) [DT-XCU-9] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 40 Line: 1266 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: ${} "unspecified". Can we try again to converge this to get rid of the fuzzy wording for compromise? Action: Pick one way and require it. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 19 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 242) [DWC-XCU-9] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 41 Line: 1312 Section: 3.3 Problem: (Token Recognition) It is very strange to represent unquoted character sequences as quoted characters. It is even worse when you are not consistent. These are shell tokens, not character constants or string constants. Action: Change 'sequences: "$", ${,' on P41, L1312 to 'sequences: $, $(,'. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 20 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 14) [DT-XCU-10] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_21 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 42 Line: 1348 Section: 3.3.1 Problem: This was UPE; the current text doesn't apply, but aliases should always be supported. Action: Delete line. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 21 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 243) [DWC-XCU-10] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 42 Line: 1348 Section: 3.3.1 Problem: (Alias Substitution) Alias substitution must be supported on all systems that support the POSIX User Portability Utilities option as well as on all XSI-conformant systems. Action: Change "XSI-conformant systems." on P42, L1348 to "XSI-conformant systems or if the system supports the User Portability Utilities option.". Also, since this line is as close as you will get to a synopsis line in this section, this line should have UP and XSI margin markings and be shaded. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 22 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 244) [DWC-XCU-11] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 44 Line: 1413 Section: 3.4 Problem: (Reserved Words) The definition of word can be found in XBD; not in XSH. Action: Change "XSH" on P44, L1413 to "XBD". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 23 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 15) [DT-XCU-11] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 1428 -> "it is possible..." and move first part of the footnote to rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 44 Line: 1427 Section: 3.4 Problem: Sounds good to me. ({ } as control operators.) See also 2692. Action: Make control operators. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 24 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 245) [DWC-XCU-12] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 45 Line: 1434 Section: 3.4 Problem: (Reserved Words) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-3. In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. Action: Change "break." on P45, L1434 to "break, Section 3.14.1 on page 100.". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 25 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 246) [DWC-XCU-13] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 46 Line: 1469-1475 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) Given that the example on P46, L1460-1468 uses the special parameter $@ before it is defined, it would be better if the description of the @ special parameter came before the description of the * special parameter. Action: Move P46, L1469-1475 to come before P46, L1455. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 26 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 247) [DWC-XCU-14] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 46 Line: 1475 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) The at sign here is not a character constant and is not a string constant; it is a special parameter. It shouldn't be quoted. Action: Change 'expansion of "@" generates zero fields, even when "@" is double- quoted' on P46, L1475 to 'expansion of @ generates zero fields, even when @ is double-quoted'. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 27 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 248) [DWC-XCU-15] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1484 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. As with the dashes used to introduce options and for the -- operand, the $- special parameter should use a wide dash rather than a thin dash. Action: Change "$-" on P47, L1484 to use the same dash that appears on P47, L1483 and L1491. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 28 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 249) [DWC-XCU-16] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1501 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-3. In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. Action: Change "sh" on P47, L1501 to "sh on page 703". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 29 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 16) [DT-XCU-12] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note 1504-> rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1507-1517 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: Should be EXAMPLE Action: Add "Example" section. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 30 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 250) [DWC-XCU-17] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 48 Line: 1531 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: (Shell Variables) The primary definition of the environment is in Chapter 6 of XBD, not in XSH. There is also some discussion of the environment in the description of the exec family of functions in XSH, but a pointer that only specifies XSH (without mentioning exec) is misleading. Action: Change "as defined by the XSH specification" on P48, L1531 to "as defined by XBD specification, Chapter 6, Environment Variables and XSH specification, Chapter 4, System Interfaces, exec. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 31 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 17) [DT-XCU-13] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 49 Line: 1599 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Inconsistent quoting (quoting single characters but not strings) is truly confusing. Since this is being discussed on the side, I won't say too much, but the more examples I see of this, the more I think that characters which are intended as input to the computer or output from it should be represented in the constant width courier font. (That may obviate the need for quoting at all, but possibly present an ISO conformance problem.) (The original .2 made far more liberal use of CW font, and it was far more readable in this regard; I think the change away from CW was a mistake.) Action: Determine fix, and do it, but whatever, fix this inconsistency. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 32 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 18) [DT-XCU-14] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move 1612-1616 -> 1632 (new para after PS4) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50 Line: 1612-1616 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Not only is this rationale in a normative place, this is a non-sequeteur. Action: Move it to where it belongs (as rationale). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 33 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 19) [DT-XCU-15] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_34 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50 Line: 1628 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Inconsistent rationale. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 34 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 251) [DWC-XCU-18] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50,51 Line: 1629-1631,1641,1642-1644,1650 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: (Shell Variables--Rationale) It looks like this rationale from POSIX.2 didn't get updated when POSIX.2a was approved. Most of the variables described as not being defined here are defined on pages 48-49. There is nothing in the descriptions of LINENO, PPID, and PS2 that isn't already covered in normative text. Action: Delete the last sentence on P50, L1629-1631 and join the following paragraph to this paragraph. Delete P50, L1641. Delete P50, L1642-1644. Delete P51, L1650. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 35 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 252) [DWC-XCU-19] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 52 Line: 1674 Section: 3.6 Problem: (Word Expansions) Awkward English. Action: Change "always is performed" on P52, L1674 to "is always performed". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 36 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 253) [DWC-XCU-20] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 52 Line: 1680,1681 Section: 3.6 Problem: (Word Expansions) The $ character here is not a string constant and should not appear in quotes. Action: Change '"$"' on P52, L1680 to '$'. Change '"$"' on P52, L1681 to '$'. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 37 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 254) [DWC-XCU-21] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 53 Line: 1720-2721,1727 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: (Tilde Expansion) Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. This is a global issue and should be corrected each time it happens. Later comments will note the places I have found, but please correct any other places I miss. LOGNAME is not described in XSH; it is described in XBD. Action: Change "see variable assignment in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P53, L1720-2721 to "see XBD specification, Section 2.326, variable assignment". Change "in the XSH specification" on P53, L1726-1727 Change "in XBD specification, Section 6.3, Other Environment Variables". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 38 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 255) [DWC-XCU-22] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept it will be reworked too look more like POSIX.2, line 1732 on should be rationale, redo as per posix.2m p829 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 53-54 Line: 1732-1757 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: (Tilde Expansion) The text on P53-54, L1732-1757 should be rationale; not normative text. P54, L1754-1757 duplicates P54, L1766-1769. Action: Move P54, L1758 to come before P53, L1732. Delete P54, L1754-1757. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 39 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 20) [DT-XCU-16] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 1749-1750 (note this will all be rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 54 Line: 1749 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: Move $~ to "Future Directions" (or just do it?) Action: Move (or do, which is fine with me). _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 40 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 256) [DWC-XCU-23] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 55 Line: 1784 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "see name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P55, L1784 to "see XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 41 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 257) [DWC-XCU-24] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 56 Line: 1821 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. You should use the same dash in "${parameter:-word}" on P56, L1821 and "${parameter-word}" on P56, L1822. You currently have a thin dash on L1821 and a wide dash on L1822. Action: Change the dash used in "${parameter:-word}" on P56, L1821 to be the dash used in "${parameter-word}" on P56, L1822. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 42 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 258) [DWC-XCU-25] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 57 Line: 1892-1895 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) The text in the rationale on P57, L1892-1895 duplicates normative text on P55, L1783-1790. Action: Delete P57, L1892-1895. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 43 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 21) [DT-XCU-17] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is useful rationale and will be kept. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 58 Line: 1901-1904 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 44 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 22) [DT-XCU-18] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: redo para as per POSIX.2 p128 l479-482 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 58 Line: 1931 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: It isn't English. A "shall" biff. Action: Restore the original: "The results of command substitution shall not be processed for further tilde substitution..." _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 45 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 259) [DWC-XCU-26] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 59 Line: 1946 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: (Command Substitution) Given that $( ) was standardized in 1992, I would no longer call it "new". Action: Change "new" on P59, L1946 to "newer". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 46 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 260) [DWC-XCU-27] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 59 Line: 1965 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: (Command Substitution) The $( and ( here represent shell grammar tokens, not general character constants or string constants. Besides that they should be handled the same way on P59, L1965 as they are on P59, L1974. Action: Change '$( and "("' on P59, L1965 to '$( and ('. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 47 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 23) [DT-XCU-19] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The rationale is felt to be useful. The example on 1992-1999 will be put into the EXAMPLES or RATIONALE section. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 60 Line: 2001 Section: 3.6.4 Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 48 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 261) [DWC-XCU-28] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61 Line: 2050-2051 Section: 3.6.4 Problem: (Arithmetic Expansion) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "as indicated by control operator in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions," on P61, L2050-2051 to "as indicated by the definition of control operator (see XBD specification, Section 2.64, control operator),". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 49 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 262) [DWC-XCU-29] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61,62 Line: 2060-2061,2068-2069,2078 Section: 3.6.5 Problem: (Field Splitting) The XBD specification clearly specifies , , , and as the way to refer to these characters from the Portable Character Set (section 4.1). Changing ", , and characters" as it appeared in POSIX.2 to "space/comma/tab" in this draft on P62, L2068 and L2078 adds lots of confusion. (Are you talking about the three characters , , and ; those three plus the character; or the ten characters , , , , , ,

, , , and .) Action: Change "a space, tab and newline character" on P61, L2060 to "the , , and characters". Change "space, tab or newline characters" on P61, L2061 to ", , or characters". Change "space/comma/tab, any sequence of space and tab" on P62, L2068-2069 to to ", any sequence of and ". Change "space/comma/tab" on P62, L2078 to "". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 50 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 263) [DWC-XCU-30] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 63 Line: 2101 Section: 3.7 Problem: (Redirection) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Also the definition of file descriptor now appears in XBD; we shouldn't refer to ISO POSIX-1 here. Action: Change "the definition in the ISO POSIX-1 standard" on P63, L2101 to "XBD specification, Section 2.111, file descriptor". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 51 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 264) [DWC-XCU-31] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 64 Line: 2158,2167 Section: 3.7.3,3.7.4 Problem: (Appending Redirected Output and Here-document) Section 3.7.2 clearly states what n defaults to if it is not specified. Sections 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 must also specify the default. Also note that here-documents can be connected to any input file descriptor, not just standard input (or file descriptor 0). Action: Add "If the number is omitted, the redirection refers to standard output (file descriptor 1)." to the end of P64, L2158. Change "standard input" on P64, L2161 to "input". Add the following after P64, L2167: where the optional n represents the file descriptor number. If the number is omitted, the here-document refers to standard input (file descriptor 0). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 52 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 24) [DT-XCU-20] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move 2219-2236 after 2265 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2219 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: This is rationale or example. Action: Mark as such. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 53 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 25) [DT-XCU-21] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_54 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2238 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: Huh? Something went wrong here. Action: Restore from P836, line 3476 of .2-1992. (Or equivalent.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 54 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 265) [DWC-XCU-32] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2238 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) In POSIX.2, the range of legal file descriptors is listed as "0-({OPEN_MAX}- 1)" and the first part of the following sentence has been garbled. Action: Change "0-(this section" on P66, L2238 to "0-({OPEN_MAX}-1). The file descriptors discussed in Redirection". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 55 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 26) [DT-XCU-22] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_56 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2240 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: Ancient History. (The LIS is dead in this regard.) Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 56 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 266) [DWC-XCU-33] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2240-2246 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) Given that other language bindings have now been done (or abandoned), I don't believe the paragraph on P66, L2240-2246 applies any more. Action: Delete P66, L2240-2246. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 57 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 267) [DWC-XCU-34] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete text on p65 l2184-2186 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 67 Line: 2266-2268 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) The text on P67, L2266-2268 in rationale duplicates P65, L2184-2186 in normative text. Action: Delete P67, L2266-2268. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 58 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 268) [DWC-XCU-35] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 69 Line: 2327 Section: 3.8.2 Problem: (Exit Status for Commands) References to other parts of this document should now specify "this document" instead of "POSIX.2" to be consistent with the rest of the text. Action: Change "POSIX.2 command, env, nohup, and xargs utilities" on P69, L2327 to "command, env, nohup, and xargs utilities in this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 59 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 269) [DWC-XCU-36] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 70 Line: 2370 Section: 3.9.1 Problem: (Simple Commands) The paragraph on P70, L2370 is a lead-in to the list following it. It should end with a colon instead of a period. Action: Change "end." on P70, L2370 to "end:". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 60 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 270) [DWC-XCU-37] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 72 Line: 2426 Section: 3.9.1 Problem: (Simple Commands) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. The dash used in "<<-" should be a wide dash instead of a thin dash. Action: Change the dash in "<<-" on P72, L2426 from a thin dash to a wide dash. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 61 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 271) [DWC-XCU-38] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 73 Line: 2468-2480 Section: 3.9.2 Problem: (Command Search and Execution) In POSIX.2 the text corresponding to P73, L2468-2480 is indented to show that it is subservient to 1.d.i. With the text the way it is presented here, I can't tell if the paragraph on P73, L2481-2486 is subservient to 1.d.i.b or to 1.d.i. Action: Indent P73, L2468-2480. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 62 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 272) [DWC-XCU-39] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 73-74 Line: 2502-2525 Section: 3.9.2 Problem: (Command Search and Execution) The text on P73-74, L2502-2525 is rationale; not normative text. The reference to ISO/IEC 9945-2 should instead refer to this document. Action: Change "the ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 standard" on P73, L2502 to "this document". Move P74, L2526 to come before P73, L2502. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 63 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 273) [DWC-XCU-40] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 75 Line: 2569 Section: 3.9.3 Problem: (Pipelines) In this document references to POSIX Shell and Utilities should instead refer to XCU. Action: Change "POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P75, L2569 to "XCU". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 64 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 274) [DWC-XCU-41] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 77-84 Line: 2621-2929 Section: 3.9.5-3.9.16 Problem: (Lists, Compound Commands, and Function Definition Command) Asynchronous lists, sequential lists, and lists, and or lists are types of lists; they should be subservient to Section 3.9.4 Lists, instead of on the same level. Similarly, grouping commands, for loops, case conditional constructs, if conditional constructs, and until loops are compound commands and should be subservient to Section 3.9.9 Compound Commands instead of being presented at the same level. Section 3.9.9 doesn't make sense as it is now written unless the following sections are subservient to it. Action: Renumber Section 3.9.5 to be 3.9.4.1. Renumber Section 3.9.6 to be 3.9.4.2. Renumber Section 3.9.7 to be 3.9.4.3. Renumber Section 3.9.8 to be 3.9.4.4. Renumber Section 3.9.9 to be 3.9.5. Renumber Section 3.9.10 to be 3.9.5.1. Renumber Section 3.9.11 to be 3.9.5.2. Renumber Section 3.9.12 to be 3.9.5.3. Renumber Section 3.9.13 to be 3.9.5.4. Renumber Section 3.9.14 to be 3.9.5.5. Renumber Section 3.9.15 to be 3.9.5.6. Renumber Section 3.9.16 to be 3.9.6. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 65 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 275) [DWC-XCU-42] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 82 Line: 2033-2034 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P82, L2833- 2834 to "XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 66 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 276) [DWC-XCU-43] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 82 Line: 2836-2837 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) The paragraph on P82, L2836-2837 is rationale, not normative text. It is also already duplicated on P84, L2928-2929. Action: Delete P82, L2836-2837. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 67 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 277) [DWC-XCU-44] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 83 Line: 2885 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) If we are referring to this document as XCU instead of POSIX.2, we need to be consistent. Action: Change "a POSIX.2 shell script" on P83, L2885 to "an XCU shell script". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 68 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 27) [DT-XCU-23] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The rationale is felt to be useful. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 83 Line: 2893 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: This is muddled, but I think it's just Ancient History and should be deleted: functions are not exported through the environment. Action: Delete. (Or clarify if I'm wrong above.) _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 69 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 278) [DWC-XCU-45] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 84 Line: 2911-2918 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) This text describing the KornShell methods of defining functions is out of date. Action: Change "The KornShell has" on P84, L2911-2912 to "Earlier versions of the KornShell had". Change "uses" on P84, L2916 to "used". Change "differs" on P84, L2916 to "differed". Change "A future edition of the KornShell is planned to align the latter syntax with POSIX and keep" on P84, L2917-2918 to "The current edition of the KornShell aligns the latter syntax with XCU and kept". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 70 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 28) [DT-XCU-24] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_69 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 84 Line: 2917 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 71 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 279) [DWC-XCU-46] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 85 Line: 2963 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) This document is supposed to be using American English. Action: Change "licence" on P85, L2963 to "license". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 72 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 280) [DWC-XCU-47] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2983 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The reserved word corresponding to the token identifier Esac is esac, not Esac. Action: Change "reserved word Esac" on P86, L2983 to "reserved word esac" with "esac" in Roman font, not bold font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 73 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 29) [DT-XCU-25] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Fix "In" -> "in" on line 2990 and sort out font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2983 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: "Esac" (bold) is not a reserved word (first on line); it should be CW esac (no capitalization). Action: Use CW esac. Similarly for the first bolded In on line 2990. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 74 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 281) [DWC-XCU-48] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2986-2987 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P86, L2986- 2987 to "XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 75 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 282) [DWC-XCU-49] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 90 Line: 3168-3169 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) There are extraneous spaces in the grammar. Action: Change ": DLESS" on P90, L3169 to ": DLESS". Change "| DLESSDASH" on P90, L3170 to "| DLESSDASH". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 76 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 283) [DWC-XCU-50] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 90 Line: 3191-3196 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The text on P90, L3191-3196 is rationale, not normative text. It is already duplicated in the rationale on P91, L3206-3211. Action: Delete P90, L3191-3196. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 77 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 284) [DWC-XCU-51] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: To be fixed by the cleanup of rationale/normative text into this chapter. Probably leave in rationale and delete p91, l3257-3242 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 91 Line: 3237-3242 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The text on P91, L3257-3242 is duplicated in normative text on P90, L3197- 3202. Action: Delete P91, L3257-3242. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 78 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 285) [DWC-XCU-52] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 93 Line: 3269-3281 Section: 3.12 Problem: (Shell Execution Environment) The text in POSIX.2 (P150, L1331-1348) is much easier to understand than the text that appears in this draft. See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Note also that this will add missing periods to the end of each element in the bullet list. Action: Change P93, L3270-3281 to be a duplicate of POSIX.2 P150, L1332-1348, but change POSIX.2 P150, L1348 from "POSIX.1 {8} environment variables." to "environment variables (see XBD, Section 6.1, Environment Variable Definition).". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 79 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 286) [DWC-XCU-53] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 93-94 Line: 3291-3297 Section: 3.12 Problem: (Shell Execution Environment) The text on P93, L3291-3296 sounds like rationale, not normative text. Action: Move P94, L3297 to come before P93, L3291. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 80 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 30) [DT-XCU-26] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change wording to "In early drafts the desciption of.." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 94 Line: 3298 Section: 3.12 Problem: "previous" to what? Is this ancient history? Action: Fix reference or delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 81 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 31) [DT-XCU-27] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Move 3349-3371 into rationale after 3372 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 96 Line: 3370 Section: 3.13.1 Problem: "For example..." is Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 82 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 287) [DWC-XCU-54] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97 Line: 3397 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) The introduction to the list on P97, L3398-3427 should end with a colon instead of a period. Action: Change "expansion." on P97, L3397 to "expansion:". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 83 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 288) [DWC-XCU-55] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Select option 1 below and MAN shade _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97,98 Line: 3403,3430-3432 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) The text on P97, L3403: It only matches a pathname of literally a[b/c]d. is not currently required by POSIX.2 and conflicts with the rationale on P98, L3430-3432. We need to determine whether this is an XSI only extension, or a feature we now want all implementations to support. Action: Choose one of the following: 1. Make this a mandatory feature for all POSIX conforming implementations by making the following changes: A. Insert the following: If a slash character is found following an unescaped open square bracket character before a corresponding closing square bracket is found, the open bracket is treated as an ordinary character. before "For example" on P97, L3402. B. Change the last sentence on P98, L3430-3432 to: On some systems (including those conforming to the Single UNIX Specification), it matched a pathname of literally a[b/c]d. On other systems it produced an undefined condition (an unescaped [ used outside a bracket expression). In this revision, the XSI behavior is now required. 2. Make it clear that this is an XSI extension not required for POSIX conformance by making the following changes: A. Insert the following: If a slash character is found following an unescaped open square bracket character before a corresponding closing square bracket is found, the open bracket is treated as an ordinary character. before "For example" on P97, L3402 as shaded text with an XSI margin marking. B. Shade the text on P97, L3403 and add an XSI margin marking. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 84 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 289) [DWC-XCU-56] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97 Line: 3404 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) Conditional clauses should be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. Action: Change "period (.) the period" on P97, L3404 to "period (.), the period". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 85 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 32) [DT-XCU-28] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: You need read permission in the current directory to expand f* but not read permission in the subdirectories to search them (search permission is sufficient) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 98 Line: 3438 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: How? It says that you don't need read permission in a directory to expand wildcards. I don't know how that would be done. As a matter of standardsese, this is probably acceptable, but it's inconsistent with glob() in XSH, and MIGHT be taken as requiring that a system actually RUN with all directories set to 111 or 311, which most won't. Action: Delete paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 86 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 290) [DWC-XCU-57] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 99 Line: 3448-3454 Section: 3.14 Problem: (Special Built-in Utilities) Page 82, line 2847 and page 249, L9022 both refer to the enumerated list on page 99 and in POSIX.2 there was an enumerated list on P153; but here on P99, L3448-3454 you have changed the enumerated list to a bullet list. This makes the references from P82 and P249 unresolved. Action: Change the bullet on P99, L3448 to "(1)". Change the bullet on P99, L3453 to "(2)". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 87 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 291) [DWC-XCU-58] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 100 Line: 3480-3483 Section: 3.14.1 Problem: (break special built-in) The reference to "this document" in the rationale is out of date; it referred to POSIX.2-1992, not XCU6. Action: Change "Consideration" on P100, L3480 to "In early drafts, consideration". Delete the second sentence in this paragraph: This new method was proposed late in the development of this document and adequate consensus could not be formed to include it. from P100, L3481-3483. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 88 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 292) [DWC-XCU-59] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 102 Line: 3532-3537 Section: 3.14.3 Problem: (continue special built-in) The example showing the use of the continue special built-in does not provide any indication that continue had any effect. Action: Add the following after P102, L3536: echo "\"$i\"" is not a directory. indented to the same level as "fi" on P102, L3535. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 89 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 33) [DT-XCU-29] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 105 Line: 3591 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: Possible ambiguity with redirection. Action: ">" -> "greater than". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 90 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 293) [DWC-XCU-60] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 105 Line: 3610,3612 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: (exec special built-in) Units might be appropriate in Fortran programs, but not in shell scripts. Go back to the term "file descriptor" as it was in POSIX.2. Action: Change "unit 5" on P105, L3610 to "file descriptor 5". Change "unit 0" on P105, L3610 to "file descriptor 0". Change "file unit 3" on P105, L3612 to "file descriptor 3". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 91 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 294) [DWC-XCU-61] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 106 Line: 3617,3619 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: (exec special built-in) The rationale is no longer correct. Action: Change "are not" on P106, L3617 to "were not". Change "does not" on P106, L3619 to "did not". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 92 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 295) [DWC-XCU-62] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 107 Line: 3627-3631 Section: 3.14.7 Problem: (exit special built-in) The text on P107, L3627-3631 is rationale, not normative. And, it is duplicated on P107, L3645-3649. Action: Delete P107, L3627-3631. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 93 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 34) [DT-XCU-30] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The issue was discussed and the idea rejected. The -p option is explicitly supplied in the spec to specify the output. delete lines 3662-3663 (as covered in the rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 108 Line: 3680 Section: 3.14.8 Problem: Time to try again to standardize (output format of export). Action: Ask. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 94 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 297) [DWC-XCU-64] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 109 Line: 3694-3695 Section: 3.14.9 Problem: (readonly special built-in) The text on P109, L3694-3695 is rationale, not normative. And, it is duplicated on P109, L3710-3711. Action: Delete P109, L3694-3695. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 95 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 296) [DWC-XCU-63] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 109 Line: 3698 Section: 3.14.9 Problem: (readonly special built-in) There is an extra space on P109, L3688. Action: Change "readonly name" on P109, L3688 to "readonly name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 96 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 298) [DWC-XCU-65] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 110 Line: 3729 Section: 3.14.10 Problem: (return special built-in) There is a mismatch between "the special parameter ?" (singular) and "are" (plural). Action: Change "? are set" on P110, L3729 to "? is set". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 97 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 299) [DWC-XCU-66] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3742 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) The second synopsis form should specify "+o option" instead of "-o option" as it is in POSIX.2, P156, L1582. Action: Change "[-o option]" on P111, L3742 to "[+o option]". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 98 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 300) [DWC-XCU-67] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3761 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "Assignment in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P111, L3761 to "XBD specification, Section 2.326, Variable Assignment". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 99 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 35) [DT-XCU-31] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group feels that the changes are more than editorial and also are incorrect. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3772-3780 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: The term "current job" (and later "previous job") are referred to without definition. The text becomes confusing. Action: Line 3773: "utilities;" -> "utilities (the 'current job');" Line 3775: "exit;" -> "exit (the 'previous job');" _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 100 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 36) [DT-XCU-32] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: We'll restore these MAN->XSI, also affects lines 3741, 3742 delete 3874 "which is not..." replace 3875 with This flag is required on XSI conforming systems Fix the change history about the -h flag _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 112 Line: 3797 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: This was explicitly deleted last time: leave it that way for exactly the reasons given at 3874. Action: Delete -h. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 101 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 37) [DT-XCU-33] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 113 Line: 3836 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Readability. Action: Move 3836 "All the..." to end of paragraph at 3838 (and for readability delete "the".). (At least DON'T let it be part of the paragraph at 3835, with which it has nothing to do.) _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 102 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 301) [DWC-XCU-68] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 113 Line: 3842 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) There is a number mismatch. Action: Change "set the special parameter # to zero" on P113, L3842 to "sets the special parameter # to zero". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 103 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 38) [DT-XCU-34] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 114 Line: 3872 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Incomplete. (Sentence.) Action: "see" what? It was 3.5.2 (Special Parameters) in .2, so presumably it's 3.5.2 here as well. (They appear to match.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 104 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 39) [DT-XCU-35] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete sentence 3897-> option names rework next sentence The -o option was adopted from the Korn Shell to address user needs _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 114 Line: 3897 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 105 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 40) [DT-XCU-36] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the group feels that the rationale is useful. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 115 Line: 3913 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 106 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 302) [DWC-XCU-69] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 116 Line: 3939 Section: 3.14.12 Problem: (shift special built-in) The is an extraneous space or two in the synopsis. Action: Change "shift [n]" on P116, L3939 to "shift [n]". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 107 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 303) [DWC-XCU-70] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Take option 1 below, and also do change history _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 117 Line: 3959 Section: 3.14.13 Problem: (times special built-in) The times special built-in does not appear in POSIX.2, is not marked MAN, and is not marked XSI. Action: Choose one of the following options: 1. Clearly note that times is now required of all conforming shells by making the following changes: A. Shade P117, L3959 and add a MAN margin marking. (The MAN marking should appear in one draft before being removed.) B. Change "None." on P117, L3977 to "The times special built-in from the Single UNIX Specification is now required for all conforming shells.". 2. Clearly note that times is an XSI extension not required for POSIX conformance by making the following changes: A. Shade P117, L3959 and add an XSI margin marking. B. Change "None." on P117, L3977 to "The times special built-in is required in all XSI conforming shells. It need not be provided otherwise.". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 108 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 304) [DWC-XCU-71] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 118 Line: 3980 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) There are extraneous space characters in the synopsis for the trap special built-in. Action: Change "trap [action condition ...]" on P118, L3980 to "trap [action condition ...]". (Note that this removes at least one space between "trap" and the "[" and at least one space between "action" and "condition".) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 109 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 305) [DWC-XCU-72] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 119 Line: 4029-4030 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The rationale on P119, L4029-4030 is duplicated on P118, L4000-4001. Action: Delete P119, L4029-4030. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 110 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 306) [DWC-XCU-73] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 119 Line: 4036-4039 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The example of saving and restoring traps is now in normative text. It doesn't need to be duplicated in the rationale. Action: Delete "For example:" from P119, L4036. Delete P119, L4037-4039. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 111 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 307) [DWC-XCU-74] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Copy POSIX.2 p 160 line 1757-1765 then do 1 & 2 marked below _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 120 Line: 4049 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The mapping of numeric signals to signal names was not marked obsolescent in POSIX.2, it was listed as an implementation extension that could be supplied only under certain circumstances. The requirement that that condition must be met if the extension is provided must still be stated in normative text. It was incorrectly marked with an OB marking in XCU5. Action: Copy POSIX.2, P160, L1757-1765 to follow XCU5 draft 1, P118, L4009. If the intent was to allow XSI conforming systems to use different signal number mappings in the future, Change P120, L4049 to the following: XCU conforming implementations have been required to support the mapping of signal names to signal numbers shown above by XCU4, XCU4v2, and XCU5. XCU6 no longer requires this option. However, if XSI conforming systems are supposed to maintain this mapping, perform the following additional actions: 1. Add an additional sentence after the text copied from POSIX.2 that says: XSI conforming implementations shall provide this extension. shaded and marked with an XSI margin marking. 2. Change P120, L4049 to the following: XSI conforming implementations provide the mapping of signal names to numbers given above. Other implementations need not provide this optional mapping. I believe XSI conforming implementations should be required to continue to support this mapping extension. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 112 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 308) [DWC-XCU-75] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 121 Line: 4069 Section: 3.14.15 Problem: (unset special built-in) The text here "All cases of name were successfully unset." is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean that if I specified a name operand of "Ab" that "AB", "Ab", "aB", and "ab" were unset. The POSIX.2 wording "All names (with "name" in italics and "s" in Roman font) were successfully unset." is clearer. Action: Change "cases of name" on P121, L4069 to "name operands" or "names" (with "name" in italic font and "s" in Roman font). _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 113 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 309) [DWC-XCU-76] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Addressed by an action _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 123 Line: 4085-4093 Section: 4 Problem: (Utilities) The materials distributed with this draft already noted that the "Chapter 3" at the top of P123 was a mistake. The note on P123, L4087 notes that other changes are needed. This is a request that those changes include adding a reference to the POSIX options (as well as the XSI options) that affect the following utility descriptions. Action: Change "Chapter 3" at the top of P123 to "Chapter 4". Clearly describe the POSIX options as well as the XSI options in this introduction. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 114 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 41) [DT-XCU-37] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: reject, SCCS is an XSI extension and not required for POSIX conformance _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 124 Line: 4095 Section: admin Problem: It was a long and painful battle between SCCS and RCS, which was finally deemed a loss by both sides, to determine which revision control system should go into the standard. In the decade or more since this battle, it appears that SCCS has more-or-less stagnated, and that RCS continues to improve and evolve, with a large number of sophisticated and powerful wrappers (e.g. CVS) developed to make it even more powerful. Although, having looked closely at both, I believe that SCCS's file format is superior (and if you haven't looked yourself, but rather believe the rumors about SCCS and forward deltas, they're STILL false), overall I think that RCS is a better revision control system, and it continues to evolve compatibly with older versions. I believe it is the wrong direction to standardize on SCCS at this time, because it is not (as far as I can tell) the predominant revision control system (that might be standardized). Note that in the intervening decade the issue with "short" filenames has pretty much evaporated, so the arguments about naming conventions no longer apply, and since RCS now handles "on the side" directories, it can handle revisioning of files with names exactly equal to whatever NAME_MAX is, which SCCS cannot (at least in this form). Action: Delete *all* SCCS commands. (I am not asking that RCS replace it, just asserting that SCCS is now even more clearly the wrong answer.) _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 115 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 310) [DWC-XCU-77] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 124 Line: 4101-4102 Section: admin Problem: (admin synopsis) There is no reason why the admin synopsis on P124, L4101-4102 would not fit on a single line. Action: Get rid of the line break at the end of P124, L4101. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 116 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 311) [DWC-XCU-78] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 127 Line: 4228 Section: admin Problem: (admin operands) A word was omitted. Action: Change "instance file" on P127, L4228 to "instance of file". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 117 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 42) [DT-XCU-38] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Dup