Document Number: AUSTIN/51 Title: XCUd3 Aardvark Change Request Report Revision Date: 2000-05-25 Source: Andrew Josey, Chair Action: for review This report contains the dispositions of the aardvark comments submitted against the XCU Draft 3. Please review items 190 onwards as these were not discussed in plenary. Aardvark Summary Table (XCUd3) ______________________ ERN 1 Accept ERN 2 Accept ERN 3 Accept ERN 4 Accept as marked ERN 5 Accept as marked ERN 6 Accept as marked ERN 7 Duplicate of 6 ERN 8 Reject ERN 9 Accept ERN 10 Accept as marked ERN 11 Reject ERN 12 Accept as marked ERN 13 Accept ERN 14 Accept ERN 15 Accept as marked ERN 16 Accept ERN 17 Accept as marked ERN 18 Reject ERN 19 Accept ERN 20 Reject ERN 21 Accept ERN 22 Accept ERN 23 Duplicate of 22 ERN 24 Accept ERN 25 Reject ERN 26 Accept ERN 27 Accept as marked ERN 28 Reject ERN 29 Accept as marked ERN 30 Reject ERN 31 Accept as marked ERN 32 Accept as marked ERN 33 Accept ERN 34 Accept as marked ERN 35 Reject ERN 36 Accept ERN 37 Accept ERN 38 Reject ERN 39 Accept ERN 40 Accept ERN 41 Accept as marked ERN 42 Reject ERN 43 Accept ERN 44 OPEN ERN 45 Accept ERN 46 Accept ERN 47 Accept as marked ERN 48 Accept as marked ERN 49 Accept as marked ERN 50 Accept as marked ERN 51 Accept as marked ERN 52 Accept as marked ERN 53 Accept ERN 54 Accept as marked ERN 55 Reject ERN 56 Accept ERN 57 Reject ERN 58 Accept ERN 59 Duplicate of 58 ERN 60 Accept as marked ERN 61 Reject ERN 62 Accept as marked ERN 63 Reject ERN 64 Accept ERN 65 Accept ERN 66 Accept ERN 67 Accept as marked ERN 68 OPEN ERN 69 Reject ERN 70 Accept ERN 71 Accept ERN 72 Accept as marked ERN 73 Accept as marked ERN 74 Accept ERN 75 Accept as marked ERN 76 Accept ERN 77 Accept ERN 78 Accept as marked ERN 79 Accept ERN 80 Accept ERN 81 Accept ERN 82 Reject ERN 83 Accept ERN 84 Accept ERN 85 Accept ERN 86 Accept ERN 87 Accept ERN 88 Reject ERN 89 OPEN ERN 90 Accept ERN 91 Reject ERN 92 Accept ERN 93 Accept ERN 94 Accept as marked ERN 95 Accept as marked ERN 96 Accept ERN 97 Accept ERN 98 Reject ERN 99 Accept as marked ERN 100 Reject ERN 101 Accept as marked ERN 102 Accept as marked ERN 103 Accept as marked ERN 104 Accept as marked ERN 105 Accept as marked ERN 106 Reject ERN 107 Accept ERN 108 Accept ERN 109 Accept as marked ERN 110 Accept as marked ERN 111 Accept as marked ERN 112 Accept as marked ERN 113 Accept ERN 114 Accept ERN 115 Accept ERN 116 Reject ERN 117 Accept as marked ERN 118 Reject ERN 119 Accept as marked ERN 120 Accept as marked ERN 121 Accept ERN 122 OPEN ERN 123 Accept ERN 124 Accept ERN 125 Accept as marked ERN 126 Reject ERN 127 Accept ERN 128 Accept as marked ERN 129 Reject ERN 130 Reject ERN 131 Accept ERN 132 Accept as marked ERN 133 Accept ERN 134 Accept as marked ERN 135 Accept as marked ERN 136 Reject ERN 137 Reject ERN 138 Reject ERN 139 Duplicate of 140 ERN 140 Accept ERN 141 Accept ERN 142 Accept ERN 143 Reject ERN 144 Reject ERN 145 Accept ERN 146 Accept ERN 147 Accept ERN 148 Accept ERN 149 Accept ERN 150 Accept ERN 151 Accept ERN 152 Accept ERN 153 Accept ERN 154 Reject ERN 155 Accept ERN 156 Accept ERN 157 Accept ERN 158 Accept as marked ERN 159 Accept ERN 160 Accept as marked ERN 161 Reject ERN 162 Accept ERN 163 Reject ERN 164 Accept ERN 165 Reject ERN 166 Accept ERN 167 Accept as marked ERN 168 Reject ERN 169 Duplicate of 171 ERN 170 Accept ERN 171 Accept ERN 172 Accept ERN 173 Accept as marked ERN 174 Reject ERN 175 Accept as marked ERN 176 Accept ERN 177 Accept as marked ERN 178 Accept as marked ERN 179 Accept ERN 180 Accept ERN 181 Accept ERN 182 Accept ERN 183 Accept ERN 184 Reject ERN 185 Accept as marked ERN 186 Accept as marked ERN 187 OPEN ERN 188 OPEN ERN 189 Accept ERN 190 Reject ERN 191 Reject ERN 192 Accept ERN 193 Reject ERN 194 Reject ERN 195 Accept ERN 196 Duplicate of 197 ERN 197 Accept ERN 198 Accept as marked ERN 199 Accept ERN 200 Accept ERN 201 Accept ERN 202 Accept ERN 203 Accept as marked ERN 204 Accept ERN 205 Accept as marked ERN 206 Accept ERN 207 Accept as marked ERN 208 Reject ERN 209 Accept ERN 210 Accept as marked ERN 211 Accept ERN 212 Reject ERN 213 Accept as marked ERN 214 Accept as marked ERN 215 Accept as marked ERN 216 Accept as marked ERN 217 Accept ERN 218 Reject ERN 219 Reject ERN 220 Duplicate of 221 ERN 221 Accept ERN 222 Accept ERN 223 Accept ERN 224 Accept ERN 225 Accept as marked ERN 226 Accept ERN 227 Accept ERN 228 Reject ERN 229 Accept ERN 230 OPEN ERN 231 Accept ERN 232 Accept as marked ERN 233 Accept as marked ERN 234 Accept ERN 235 Reject ERN 236 Reject ERN 237 Accept as marked ERN 238 Accept ERN 239 Accept ERN 240 Accept ERN 241 Reject ERN 242 Accept as marked ERN 243 Accept as marked ERN 244 Accept as marked ERN 245 Reject ERN 246 Accept ERN 247 Reject ERN 248 Reject ERN 249 Accept as marked ERN 250 Accept as marked ERN 251 Reject ERN 252 Duplicate of 253 ERN 253 Accept ERN 254 OPEN ERN 255 Accept as marked ERN 256 Reject ERN 257 Accept ERN 258 Accept as marked ERN 259 Accept ERN 260 Accept ERN 261 Accept ERN 262 Accept ERN 263 Accept ERN 264 OPEN ERN 265 Accept ERN 266 Reject ERN 267 Accept ERN 268 Accept ERN 269 Reject ERN 270 Accept as marked ERN 271 Accept ERN 272 Duplicate of 273 ERN 273 Accept as marked ERN 274 Accept as marked ERN 275 Accept ERN 276 Accept ERN 277 Accept as marked ERN 278 Accept as marked ERN 279 Accept ERN 280 Accept ERN 281 Accept as marked ERN 282 Reject ERN 283 Accept as marked ERN 284 Accept as marked ERN 285 Accept ERN 286 Accept ERN 287 Accept as marked ERN 288 Accept as marked ERN 289 Accept as marked ERN 290 Accept ERN 291 Accept as marked ERN 292 Reject ERN 293 Accept as marked ERN 294 Accept ERN 295 Accept as marked ERN 296 Reject ERN 297 Duplicate of 260 ERN 298 Accept as marked _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 1 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 10) {pasc-1003.2-168-p2} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 11 Line: 247-249 Section: 1.7.1.4 Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified the following change as notes to the editor: (page and line nos are POSIX.2) move page 93 3387-3389 to follow 3417. Action: Move P11, L247-249 to follow P11, L283. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 2 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 11) {pasc-1003.2-168-p3} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 11 Line: 2250 Section: 1.7.1.4 Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified the following change as notes to the editor: (page and line nos are POSIX.2) page 93 to follow 3417. New first para: If a file that does not exist is to be written, it shall be created as described below, unless the utility description states otherwise. Action: Add the following new paragraph before P11, L250. "If a file that does not exist is to be written, it shall be created as described below, unless the utility description states otherwise." _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 3 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 31) [DT-XCU-1] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note that "can can" -> "can") _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 22 Line: 713 Section: 1.9 Problem: "push a value" is highly idiomatic, and thus inappropriate for a standard to be translated into multiple languages. Action: "in fact push a value to" -> "can actually reach" _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 4 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 32) [DT-XCU-2] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: a shall pass has been marked up for 1.11. The editors have had one shall pass and shall try again (sic); however help is needed from all. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 29 Line: 1018 Section: 1.11 Problem: Shallification. This is an example of a serious variant. Action: "is not used" is a nice observation. "shall not be used" is a clear-cut requirement. I noticed this one while looking at the original .2, which DOES have "shall" here. 1) Fix here. 2) Editor, check every instance of a simple assertion ("is" statement in any form) against .1 and .2, and restore all missing shalls. (Actually, just check .1 and .2 for all "shall"s, and restore them; presumably you have or can get original machine-readable text.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 5 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 33) [DT-XCU-3] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: at line 1027: other utilities shall not write to standard error if they complete successfully, unless ..." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 29 Line: 1028 Section: 1.11 Problem: "the standard error" is wrong ("the"). Action: -> either "standard error" or "the standard error file". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 6 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 25) {bwg2000-004p2} Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:37 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add after sentence 2 of Bullet 1 of section 2.1 on XCU D3 page 35, line 1203 : On XSI conformant systems, if the first two characters of a file are "#!", it shall behave as described for Executable Scripts in Section nn.nn.nn.nn. Fixup Rationale on page 35 of XCU, by changing line 1227 "a conforming application" to "a POSIX conforming application". and then adding: "An XSI conforming application can use the construct #!, since on XSI conformant systems this is defined to denote an an Executable Script, which matches historical practice. Invention of new meanings or extensions to the #! construct were rejected since they are beyond the scope of this document." Add new part into the Shell Command Language description (will need to find a suitable location) [XSI shade on] Executable Script XSI-Conformant systems shall support executable scripts. A successful call to a function of the exec family with an executable script as the first parameter shall result in a new process, where the process image that is started is that of the interpreter. The path name of the interpreter follows the "#!" characters . If the executable script has a first line #! interpreter [arg] then the interpreter shall be called with an argument array consisting of an unspecified zeroth argument, followed by arg (if present), followed by a path name for the script, followed by the arguments following the zeroth argument in the exec call of the script. No shell operations (as described above in section 2.1) shall be performed on the first line of an executable script. The behavior shall be unspecified if the first line of the executable script does not meet all of the following criteria: 1. the first line shall be in one of the formats below: "#!%s\n" interpreter "#!%s\n" interpreter "#!%s%s\n" interpreter arg "#!%s%s\n" interpreter arg 2. the interpreter argument shall be an absolute pathname of an executable file other than an executable script, 3. the interpreter argument and the arg argument, if present, shall not contain any quoting characters, 4. the interpreter argument and the arg argument, if present, shall not contain any whitespace characters, and 5. the length of the first line shall be no longer than 80 bytes. Rationale (XRAT): The working group did not reach consensus to adopt this as a core requirement, that is for POSIX conformancing applications, however existing practice on UNIX systems indicated that it should be added as an XSI extension, and this was brought into the scope of this revision by The Open Group Base Working group resolution BWG2000-004. The scope of this feature is to document existing practice and not to invent. Applications must not assume that the standard utilities will be available in any particular named directory. For example it cannot be assumed that standard versions of awk and sh will be available as "/bin/sh" or "/bin/awk" respectively, since implementations are permitted to provide non standard versions of the utilities in these directories. It is recommended that an installation script for executable scripts, use the standard PATH returned by a call to the getconf utility with the argument PATH, combined with the command utility to determine the location of a standard utility: For example to determine the location of the standard sh utility: command -v sh On some systems this might return /usr/xpg4/bin/sh Note that the installation script should ensure that the returned pathname is an absolute pathname prior to use, since a shell builtin might be returned for some utilities. in XCUd3 page 900 sh APPLICATION USAGE Change the example from #! /bin/sh - to #! /usr/bin/sh - Add the following text: Applications should note that the standard PATH to the shell cannot be assumed to be either "/bin/sh" or "/usr/bin/sh" and should be determined by interrogation of the PATH returned by getconf PATH, ensuring that the returned pathname is an absolute pathname and not a shell builtin . For example to determine the location of the standard sh utility: command -v sh On some systems this might return /usr/xpg4/bin/sh Furthermore, on systems that support executable scripts (the #! construct), it is recommend that applications using executable scripts install them using getconf -v to determine the shell pathname and update the #! script appropriately as it is being installed (e.g. with sed), for example: # # Installation time script to install correct posix shell pathname # # # Get list of paths to check # Sifs=$IFS IFS=: set $(getconf PATH) IFS=$Sifs # # Check each path for 'sh' # for i in $@ do if [ -f ${i}/sh ]; then Pshell=${i}/sh fi done # # This is the list of scripts to update. They should be # of the form '${name}.source' and will be transformed to '${name}' # each script should begin # #!INSTALLSHELLPATH -p # scripts="a b c" # # Transform each script # for i in ${scripts} do sed -e "s|INSTALLSHELLPATH|${Pshell}|" < ${i}.source > ${i} done _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 35 Line: 1201 Section: 2.1 Problem: The Open Group Base Working Group has approved resolution BWG2000-004 (see http://www.opengroup.org/platform/resolutions/ ). This introduces the concept of executable scripts using the #! notation as an XSI extension. Action: Change sentence 2 of Bullet 1 of section 2.1 on XCU D3 page 35 to: "If the first line of a file of shell commands starts with the characters "#!", and if the system is XSI-conformant it shall behave as described in Executable Script on page XX, otherwise the results are unspecified". Fixup Rationale on page 35 of XCU Change the paragraph beginning on l 1225: "The construct "#!" is reserved for implementations..." to "The construct "#!" is reserved for POSIX implementations..." Change line 1227 "conforming application" to "conforming POSIX application" Add a new sentence at line 1228: "The construct #! is defined for XSI-conformant systems and XSI-conforming applications." Add new part into the Shell Command Language description (will need to find a suitable location) [XSI shade on] Executable Script XSI-Conformant systems shall support executable scripts. A successful call to a function of the exec family with an executable script as the first parameter shall result in a new process, where the process image that is started is that of the interpreter. The path name of the interpreter follows the "#!" characters . If the executable script has a first line #! interpreter [arg] then the interpreter shall be called with an argument array consisting of an unspecified zeroth argument, followed by arg (if present), followed by a path name for the script, followed by the arguments following the zeroth argument in the exec call of the script. No shell operations (as described above in section 2.1) shall be performed on the first line of an executable script. The first line of the executable script shall meet all of the following criteria otherwise the results are unspecified: 1. Is of one of the forms: "#!%s\n" interpreter "#!d%s\n" interpreter "#!%sd%s\n" interpreter arg "#!d%sd%s\n" interpreter arg [Note: "d" in all places in the above formats is replaced by the delta character than indicates exactly one character rather than the arbitrary number of and characters indicated by using a space in a format string.] 2. The interpreter argument is an absolute pathname of an executable file other than an executable script. 3. Neither the interpreter argument nor the arg argument, if present, contain any quoting characters. 4. Neither the interpreter argument nor the arg argument, if present, contain any whitespace characters. 5. The length of the entire line is no longer than 80 bytes. XSI-conforming applications shall not specify a first line length of more than 80 characters. Rationale: The working group did not reach consensus to adopt this as a core requirement, however existing practise on UNIX systems indicated that it should be added as an XSI extension. Applications must not assume that the standard utilities will be available in any particular named directory. For example it cannot be assumed that standard versions of awk and sh will be available as "/bin/sh" or "/bin/awk" respectively, since implementations are permitted to provide non standard versions of the utilities in these directories. It is recommended that an installation script for executable scripts, use the standard PATH returned by a call to the getconf utility with the argument PATH, combined with the command utility to determine the location of a standard utility: For example to determine the location of the standard sh utility: PATH=`getconf PATH` command -v sh On some systems this might return /usr/xpg4/bin/sh Note that the installation script should ensure that the returned pathname is an absolute pathname prior to use, since a shell builtin might be returned for some utilities. in XCUd3 page 900 sh APPLICATION USAGE Change the example from #! /bin/sh - to #! /usr/bin/sh - and add a note "The standard PATH to the shell cannot be assumed to be either "/bin/sh" or "/usr/bin/sh" and should be determined by interrogation of the PATH returned by getconf PATH, ensuring that the returned pathname is an absolute pathname and not a shell builtin ." For example to determine the location of the standard sh utility: PATH=`getconf PATH` command -v sh On some systems this might return /usr/xpg4/bin/sh _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 7 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 c89 (rdvk# 297) {see-bwg2000-004p2} Tue, 2 May 2000 09:50:07 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_6 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 35 Line: 1201 Section: 2.1 Problem: This item was posted to austin-group mail seq 719 prior to the close of the review period. The chair is including it in the review as it includes proposed specific textual changes to an existing ERN. (from Donn Terry) The wording as it stands is just not right. The base (ISO) standard needs to be able to stand alone, as if all the greyed-out areas just disappeared, it would still make sense. The proposed wording below doesn't achieve that goal (and as you'll find out in a little bit, this is not the only instance of this.) It should read (as a general mode.) ...is unspecified. On XSI conformant systems it shall... I've added more specific text below (marked with >>). Action: Change sentence 2 of Bullet 1 of section 2.1 on XCU D3 page 35 to: "If the first line of a file of shell commands starts with the characters "#!", and if the system is XSI-conformant it shall behave as described in Executable Script on page XX, otherwise the results are unspecified". >> (Retain old text as-was, and add...) >>On XSI conformant systems, if the first two characters of a file are >>"#!", it shall behave as described for Executable Scripts in >>Section nn.nn.nn.nn. Fixup Rationale on page 35 of XCU Change the paragraph beginning on l 1225: "The construct "#!" is reserved for implementations..." to "The construct "#!" is reserved for POSIX implementations..." >> leave as was, and add >> On XSI conformant systems the #! construct is given >> its historical meaning of an Executable Script. Change line 1227 "conforming application" to "conforming POSIX application" >> This should always have been "strictly conforming" >> (because "it could have been ...using extensions". >> I'm not sure whether this is the right change or not... in XCUd3 page 900 sh APPLICATION USAGE Change the example from #! /bin/sh - to #! /usr/bin/sh - >>> Why bother with this change given the below... _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 8 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 34) [DT-XCU-4] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Out of scope _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 37 Line: 1270 Section: 2.2.3 Problem: See the rationale at 1299 for context. Does this limitation from System V remain true today? This was an objection from last time, addressed with the excessively glib "this is rationale". I'm making a substantive suggestion that the normative text be changed, it just so happens that the best place to hand that objection falls in rationale where a problem is discussed. I've been forced this time to put it on a line number where the problem is not immediately obvious simply so it will be taken seriously. Action: 1) Drop the text at 1302. 2) Replace 1270/1273 with the text from 1266/1269, substituting (->{ and )->} in the new copy. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 9 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 274) [DWC-5] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 39,...,1111 Line: 1372,...,42274 Section: 0 Problem: (quoting problems) The use of quotes is much more consistent than it has been in earlier documents, but there are still a few problems. I believe the intent is that character constants that would be used in the C language are to be used to specify character constants. But, in the C language the character constant for the backslash character is '\\' instead of '\' and the character constant for the single quote character is '\'' instead of '''. There are also several places where the intended sequence ('"') has been mangled. Action: Change: '\' on P39, L1372 to: '\\' Change: ''' on P39, L1372 to: '\'' Change: ' )' on P39, L1372 to: '"') Change: '\' on P54, L1999 to: '\\' Change: ''' on P59, L2176 to: '\'' Change: '' on P59, L2176 to: '"' Change: (' )' on P62, L2260 to: ('"') Change: (' )' on P402, L15283 to: ('"') Change: '\' on P416, L15819 to: '\\' Change: ("''") on P629, L23997 to: ('') (Note that this case is talking about paired double and single quotes and is a little different from the other cases. I will be happy to discuss this instance if the editor believes both the paired double quotes and the paired single quotes should all be quoted.) Change: '\' on P416, L27637 to: '\\' Change: (' )' on P1034, L39325 to: ('"') Change: '\' on P1034, L39325 to: '\\' Change: (' )' on P1101, L41883 to: ('"') Change: ''' on P1101, L41884 to: '\'' Change: ''' on P1111, L42274 to: '\'' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 10 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 36) [DT-XCU-6] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Remove from 1416 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 40 Line: 1403 Section: 2.3 Problem: EMB Identical text at 1416. Action: Remove from 1403. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 11 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 35) [DT-XCU-5] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The rationale will be moving to a different volume at the next draft, and this text is required in both places to allow the rationale to be readable. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 40 Line: 1412 Section: 2.3 Problem: EMB see line 1367 or so for identical text. Action: Remove at 1367. Notes: There are a number of these text duplications. Some within rationale or within the main text, as well as quite a few between rationale an the main text. In any of these cases (but particularly in the first two cases) I find this simply embarrassing. It makes the document look sloppy, poorly proofread, and simply not up to the quality of document I want to see produced. Just reading what's actually there would catch most of these; it's a waste of time to have 50 people all have to read them. I've notated this (and some other) problems with "EMB", meaning "embarrassing". As a matter of having an actual action, I've always suggested deleting the earlier (and thus non-rationale) copy of duplicated text (unless *I* had a reason to do otherwise). I really don't strongly care which is removed, but if it is the rationale copy, careful thought should be given to be sure that the remaining copy is appropriate to its new context. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 12 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 37) [DT-XCU-7] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete the sentence _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 41 Line: 1440 Section: 2.3 Problem: Alias is present... "the base standard" is meaningless. Is it just required now, or part of an option group? Action: Delete (or mark as part of UP?) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 13 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 38) [DT-XCU-8] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 43 Line: 1513 Section: 2.51 Problem: Duplicated on 1520. Action: To be consistent, I'd say remove it from 1513. However, in this case it appears to be making a requirement, so shall-ify this and remove at 1520. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 14 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 39) [DT-XCU-9] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 44 Line: 1547 Section: 2.5.2 Problem: EMB Duplicate text at 1558 Action: Delete at 1547. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 15 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 41) [DT-XCU-11] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Ref XBDd3 ERN 71 Move to XBD General Concepts and do the change: Change "In all cases," to "When a variable assignment is done," _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 45 Line: 1610 Section: 2.5.3 Problem: Fix for XCU "shall in definition". Action: Move text from XBD 3217 to here (just after "implementation extensions"). Change "In all cases," to "When a variable assignment is done," (More from that definition could be moved here, although the base definition does belong in XBD.) (Yes, I did mean move... the stuff in XCU is marginal in a definition.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 16 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 40) [DT-XCU-10] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 45 Line: 1610 Section: 2.5.3 Problem: Topic change; need new paragraph. Action: New paragraph before "The following". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 17 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 42) [DT-XCU-12] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: copy p40 1420-1 to follow p45 1610 changing aliases to the ENV shell variable. Delete last sentence p45 1618-1619 (This volume..). _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 45 Line: 1617 Section: 2.5.3 Problem: Inconsistent with text at 1420. Either this should be shaded and marked XSI or the text there should not be. Action: Shade both, mark ONLY as UP. The addition of XSI profile does no good here. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 18 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 43) [DT-XCU-13] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: see ERN 11 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 46 Line: 1644 Section: 2.5.3 Problem: EMB Duplicate text at 1698 Action: Delete at 1644. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 19 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 44) [DT-XCU-14] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 54 Line: 1972 Section: 2.6.2 Problem: Huh? What are the tagged paragraphs trying to say? (One is gibberish, the other has no tag.) Action: The correct alphabet soup is in POSIX.2, P 833, L 3336 and 3337. (Not that that doesn't look like line noise, too.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 20 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 45) [DT-XCU-15] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject___X_ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: see L2042 for warning. There is no reason given for requiring existing strictly conforming applications to have to convert from `` to $(). The `` form works just fine for cases that don't need nesting or embedded quotes. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 54 Line: 1990 Section: 2.6.2 Problem: As I observed last time, backquote substitution is a strong candidate for obsolescent (legacy) status. The response from last time doesn't address the issue: it's not whether it's widely used that's the issue, it's whether it should continue to be used in new scripts (and granted full status). It was replaced with $() for some very good reasons (primarily that it can't always work), and now that any system claiming to be POSIX conformant has $(), there's little case to retain backquote's full status. New applications should be written to use $(). Action Make legacy. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 21 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 46) [DT-XCU-16] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: marked up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 60 Line: 2196 Section: 2.7 Problem: shall. Action: "implementations support" -> "implementations shall support". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 22 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 48) [DT-XCU-18] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: marked up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61 Line: 2228 Section: omitted Problem: shall Action: Active verb ("fails") must be a shall. "fails" -> "shall fail" (as in .2). Again, restore all .2 shalls. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 23 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 47) [DT-XCU-17] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_22 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61 Line: 2228 Section: 2.7.2 Problem: shall Action: "format fails" -> "format shall fail". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 24 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 49) [DT-XCU-19] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: marked up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 65 Line: 2361 Section: 2.8 Problem: Inconsistent terminology. The running text at 2365 got shall-ified, but the table did not. Action: Change the table to "shall exit" and "shall not exit" (as was in .2) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 25 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 50) [DT-XCU-20] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This would place requirements in rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 67 Line: 2433 Section: 2.9 Problem: "do not construct" is a statement about which we have no knowledge or control. Action: Change to "are not portable if they construct" (or "shall not construct", make it a requirement). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 26 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 8) {pasc-1003.2-169} Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:48:30 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 76 Line: 2799 Section: 2.9.4.2 Problem: PASC Interpretation request 1003.2 #169 has the following note to the editors for the revision: Notes to the project editor: (not part of the interpretation): (note these page and line numbers are against 1003.2) Change the synopsis for p 140 line 915 from for name [in word ...] to be for name [in [word ...]] and in the grammar on p147 add new line between 1198 and 1199 "| For name linebreak in sequential_sep do_group" Action: Change the synopsis for p 76 line 2799 from for name [in word ...] to be for name [in [word ...]] and in the grammar on p85 add new line between 3176 and 3177 "| For name linebreak in sequential_sep do_group" [Ed note: Add to rationale that PASC Interpretation 1003.2 #169 has been applied changing the grammer ] _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 27 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 51) [DT-XCU-21] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete from 2974-5 "-and so ..." to end of sentence _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 81 Line: 2975 Section: 2.9.5 Problem: Again this is a repeat of an objection from last time that was glibly disposed of. On 2975, it says that functions ARE exportable from *this* standard. Immediately thereafter it says that they are not (that the feature was opposed and withdrawn). Action: I'm suggesting that the whole discussion be dropped as ancient history, although I can see how some might disagree. This needs some thorough editing, but minimally the conflict must be removed if it is to be retained. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 28 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 52) [DT-XCU-22] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The para as a whole specifies how patterns are pocessed in pathnames, breaking it would confuse the matter _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 94 Line: 3511 Section: 2.13.3 Problem: Need paragraph break. Action: Break paragraph after "each x* directory". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 29 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 53) [DT-XCU-23] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is consistent with other cross refs in this draft. The page number and page title are automatically generated. Cathy will change the macros to put the page number in parens. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 114 Line: 4062 Section: readonly Problem: a) This is an illegal form of reference (page # only). b) This is trivially indexable (and only 2 pages back!) Action: Delete reference. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 30 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 54) [DT-XCU-24] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: See XBD 32 and 52. Once these changes have been made, the need to make a change here goes away. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 117 Line: 4166 Section: set Problem: This was discussed and (again rather glibly) dismissed. We'll have to do it the hard way. The terms "previous job" and "current job" are used in this paragraph without definition. (The definition can probably be inferred from context, but we're NOT in the business of writing mystery novels, we're in the business of writing precise specifications and avoiding interpretation requests.) (See lines 4173 and 4174.) Action: Make changes for "previous job" and "current job" requested in XCU. Replace paragraph at 4166 (retain the bullet, just replace the paragraph) with: The character '+' identifies the current job. The character '-' identifies the previous job. For other jobs, the character is used. There shall be at most one current job and one suspended job. If there is any suspended job, then the current job shall be a suspended job. If there are at least two suspended jobs, both the current and previous jobs shall be suspended jobs. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 31 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 55) [DT-XCU-25] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 4332-4335 on page 21 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 121 Line: 4333 Section: set Problem: "these two"... *which* two? Action: I don't know. This same problem appears in .2-1990, so we need to ask an original author what this was about. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 32 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 56) [DT-XCU-26] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "such as the utilities in this section" -> "such as the Batch Environment utilities (marked BE)" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 136 Line: 4787 Section: 3.1.10 Problem: "utilities in this section" doesn't apply; there aren't any sections here (they're interspersed with everything else in alphabetical order). Action: -> "utilities for Batch Environment" (or "marked with the BE code"). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 33 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 57) [DT-XCU-27] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 137 Line: 4824 Section: 3.2 Problem: Bad page break. Action: Get table title with table. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 34 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 58) [DT-XCU-28] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Delete p136 l 4763-4782 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 138 Line: 4844 Section: 3.2.1 Problem: EMB Identical text at 4763. Action: Choose one, only one. Delete at 4763. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 35 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 59) [DT-XCU-29] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Out of scope. If the standard is wrong, please file an interpretation request. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 142 Line: 5019 Section: 3.2.2.1 Problem: I don't see why this should be documented in the conformance doc. Action: implementation-dependent -> unspecified. (Note... I suspect that this crept in because *implementation dependent* doesn't emphasize the conformance document as much as "implementation defined".) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 36 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 60) [DT-XCU-30] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 145 Line: 5118 Section: 3.2.2.1 Problem: "might" (this does grant permission, so "might" is wrong) Action: -> "may". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 37 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 61) [DT-XCU-31] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 148 Line: 5243 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: Move the table up to near its first reference (it's NOT referenced near where it currently appears.) Action: move 5250-5272 to here. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 38 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 62) [DT-XCU-32] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: See lines 5383-5386 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 151 Line: 5382 Section: 3.2.3.7 Problem: There's a question needing answering here... what about a running job? Action: I believe it's answered implicitly in the commands, but ask someone from Batch to clarify it here. (Even if it's unspecified, it's such an obvious case that words should be said.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 39 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 63) [DT-XCU-33] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 156 Line: 5565 Section: 3.3.1 Problem: "@server" alone is not allowed by the syntax at 5553. Action: At 5553: "sequence_number" -> "[sequence_number]". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 40 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 64) [DT-XCU-34] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 158 Line: 5640 Section: 3.3.3 Problem: wrong word. Action: "precedent" -> "precedence". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 41 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 65) [DT-XCU-35] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: it is scheduled to appear in XRAT _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 158 Line: 5649 Section: 3 Problem: There is no supporting rationale for Batch; given what was just added, presumably it was generated in the batch working group. If not, the batch group might be asked to generate as much as they can remember; it will help a lot in a few years! Action: Restore (or get the batch group to create) rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 42 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 66) [DT-XCU-36] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Already stated on p163 l5800 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 160 Line: 5656 Section: admin Problem: I note that the file format for SCCS is not specified. One of three things must happen: 1) Specify it. 2) Add text: "The format of SCCS files is unspecified and interchange of "s." files between implementations (including access via unspecified file sharing mechanisms) is not required by the standard". 3) Delete SCCS. Note that for there to be a normative reference to solve the problem that it must be a PAS or better. I don't believe such exists. Action: Choose one of the above. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 43 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 67) [DT-XCU-37] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 160 Line: 5687 Section: admin Problem: shall Action: "file is" -> "file shall be". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 44 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 69) [DT-XCU-39] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 161 Line: 5728 Section: admin Problem: "a,a,a,a" seems silly, as permitted by the grammar. Is a range of SIDs (SID-SID) intended to be possible? That would justify this use of the word . Action: Either confirm that the intent includes a,a,a,a (and add rat) or change the grammar to: ::= a | ::= | , Or further extend the grammar if a real range is intended. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 45 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 68) [DT-XCU-38] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 161 Line: 5736 Section: admin Problem: shall Action: "causes" -> "shall cause" (we're requiring that it...). Particularly in commands like SCCS which never have been thru the ISO process before, make another editorial pass to shallify the active verbs. (This is a great deal less work for the editors, who can simply fix them as they see them, than for reviewers who have to type up a request.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 46 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 275) [DWC-6] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 166,...,1100 Line: 5922,...,41840 Section: 4 Problem: (application usage for optional utilities) Some optional utilities (such as csplit [from the User Portability Utilities option]) have an Application Usage subclause saying: "Application writers should note that this utility need not be provided on systems that do not support the XXX option." Some other optional utilities (such as admin [from the XSI option] and fort77 [from the Fortran Development Utilities option]) omit this warning. The optional utilities should all be marked the same way. Action: Since only the User Portability Utilities option utilities and the delta utility in the XSI Development Utilities option seem to be marked like this, I believe the markings should be deleted throughout the document. Change P166, L5922-2923 to "None.". Delete P184, L6618-6619. Delete P227, L8421-8422. Delete P244, L9163-9164. Delete P312, L11823-11824. Change P316, L11958-11959 to "None.". Delete P321, L12138-12139 Change P328, L12432-12433 to "None.". Change P346, L13118-13119 to "None.". Delete P350, L13247-13248. Change P364, L13733-13734 to "None.". Delete P433, L16470-16471. Change P461, L17627-17628 to "None.". Delete P474, L18048-18049. Delete P477, L18171-18172. Delete P483, L18397-18398. Delete P557, L21105-21106. Delete P669, L25605-25606. Delete P686, L26223-26224. Delete P696, L26602-26603. Delete P700, L26738-26739. Delete P730, L27867-27868. Delete P791, L30413-30414. Delete P858, L32932-32933. Change P914, L35054-35055 to "None.". Delete P918, L35176-35177. Delete P933, L35781-35782. Delete P941, L36046-36047. Delete P957, L36606-36607. Delete P964, L36893-36894. Delete P989, L37760-37761. Delete P998, L38057-38058. Delete P1013, L38584-38585. Delete P1018, L38766-38767. Change P1070, L40711-40712 to "None.". Delete P1096, L41723-41724. Delete P1100, L41839-41840. I would also accept adding a statement of the form: "Application writers should note that this utility need not be provided on systems that do not support the XXX option." with "XXX" replaced by the appropriate option name to each optional utility instead, but prefer that the changes listed above be made. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 47 nick@usenix.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 18) {usenix7} Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:45:19 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change c89 to c99 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 168 Line: 5975 Section: ar Problem: Reference to c89 Action: change c89 to c99 (or add c99) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 48 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 70) [DT-XCU-40] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: add reviewers note with problem statement.( This will eventually need an interp against 2b) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 171 Line: 6091 Section: ar Problem: In this case, if the command line contains a pathname which is not a simple filename (that is, contains a slash), does it print the member name (which seems what's intended) or the actual text from the command line (which is what's said). Action: Need comparative implementation results, but "where is the member name found to be in conflict" would fix it if my guess above is correct. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 49 nick@usenix.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 19) {usenix8} Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:45:19 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change c89-c99 (this is a global edit) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 174 Line: 6216 Section: ar Problem: Reference to c89 Action: change c89 to c99 (or add c99) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 50 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 71) [DT-XCU-41] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete p218 l 8118-8120 as dup of 7836 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 218 Line: 8118 Section: awk Problem: EMB Repeated text. Action: delete 8161. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 51 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 72) [DT-XCU-42] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 7910-7965 inclusive _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 220 Line: 8178 Section: awk Problem: EMB Repeated text. Action: Delete at 7931. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 52 nick@usenix.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 20) {usenix9} Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:45:19 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change c89 to c99 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 224 Line: 8315 Section: basename Problem: Reference to c89 Action: change c89 to c99 (or add c99) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 53 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 27) {c99-c99-1} Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:37 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 246 Line: 9188 Section: c99 Problem: The Open Group working on the c99 alignment report recommends that a new c99 utility be introduced. This should be done by duplicating the existing XCU d3 c89 page prior to any edits and then making changes as detailed below. On the c99 page we need to introduce equivalent POSIX_ macros (equivalent to the legacy XBS5_* but for the new version of standard C). These that the names of these symbols needs to be issue specific, as they change each issue. Other changes are detailed below. Action: Create a new man page called c99. Duplicate the existing c89 XCUd3 text (prior to any changes to XCU d3). Rename occurrences of the (now legacy) XBS5_* macros to _POSIX_V6_ (we're open to a different naming suggestions other than _POSIX_V6_, e.g. _POSIX_I6_ etc?) In table 4-4 , Programming Environments: Type Sizes: 9375 _XBS5_ILP32_OFF32 -> _POSIX_V6_ILP32_OFF32 9376 _XBS5_ILP32_OFFBIG -> _POSIX_V6_ILP32_OFFBIG 9377 _XBS5_LP64_OFF64 -> _POSIX_V6_LP64_OFF64 9378 _XBS5_LPBIG_OFFBIG -> _POSIX_V6_LPBIG_OFFBIG similarly in Table 4-5 change occurrences of _XBS5_ to _POSIX_V6 and XBS5_ to POSIX_V6 Occurrences of c89 throughout the text will need changing to c99. The example wil need changing so that _XOPEN_SOURCE=600. The rationale should be cut down to the following: The c99 utility is based on the c89 utility originally introduced in (reference to POSIX.2-1992). Change History: New in Issue 6. Introduced for alignment with ISO/IEC 9899:1999. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 54 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 26) {c99-c89-1} Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:37 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete the c89 utility, ensure that all refs to c89 become c99 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 246 Line: 9188 Section: c89 Problem: The recommendation from the Open Group working on the c99 alignment report, is that c89 be marked obsolete and retained in its existing form for backwards compatibility, with certain modifications as detailed in this change request and that a new c99 utility be introduced to align with the new revision of the C Standard. Modifications are also required to getconf, sysconf() confstr(), and unistd.h. These are detailed in separate change requests, as is the request to create a separate c99 utility page. Action: On XCUd3 page 246, The c89 utility needs to be marked LEGACY change line 9195: from "ISO C standard" (in the 1st paragraph of the description to explicitly refer to the old C standard ) to "ISO/IEC 9899:1990 Programming Languages--C, including Technical Corrigendum 1:1994 and Amendment 1:1994, Multibyte Support Extensions (MSE) for ISO C". Add two new paragraphs after the new text above and before "The system consists conceptually...." For applications built with c89 using functions defined both in POSIX.1-1996 and XSH6, where behavior differs between the POSIX.1-1996 and XSH6 definitions, the behavior shall be as defined in POSIX.1-1996. The behavior of applications built with c89 is undefined if the application uses any functions defined in XSH6 that were not defined in POSIX.1-1996. [XSI shadeon] For applications built with c89 using functions defined both in XSH5 and XSH6, where behavior differs between the XSH5 and XSH6 definitions, the behavior shall be as defined in XSH5. The behavior of applications built with c89 is undefined if the application uses any functions defined in XSH6 that were not defined in XSH5. [XSI shadeoff] Add to change history The c89 utility is marked Legacy due to the introduction of the new c99 utility. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 55 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 c89 (rdvk# 298) {see-c99-c99-1} Tue, 2 May 2000 09:50:07 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This standard is aligned with c99 c89 has been deleted, we agree that _POSIX_V6 is not the best name, but using date of the approval of the volume won't help implementations that want to start supporting this sooner, need some fixed string, until we come up with one _POSIX_V6 will be it. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 246 Line: 9188 Section: c89 Problem: This item was posted to austin-group mail seq 720 prior to the close of the review period. The chair is including it in the review as it includes proposed specific changes to an existing ERN. (from Donn Terry) 1) I don't have a BIT of problem with c99 being introduced as a new compiler. And I don't have a problem with making the large number of consequential changes that that implies throughout the document. 2) However, I *DO* have a problem with obsoleting c89 (and all its consequences) at this time. (My opinion on that may change depending on how long this whole process takes.) 3) I also have a problem with "V6" (or anything like it) getting into the base ISO standard. (Since it has no meaning... ISO/IEEE standards have (year) dates, but do not have reivsion numbers.) In this case, I can't tell for sure which of the V6 (or I6) proposals are XSI and which are for the ISO standard. So... Action: 1) Make c89 and c99 distinct options--BOTH are options. 2) Have the ISO standard select (at least) the c89 option. Add an editor's note that at the last minute this choice is to be reconsidered. (In fact, I'd phrase it as below, so that it can be carried into balloting.) 3) Have the XSI standard select whatever it wants in this regard. 4) Encode the year of adoption of the standard (and thus for the moment float it with an Editor's note) into the flags. (The last two digits is fine.) If this really ends up being a property of the compiler (I have to think about that) then maybe 99 is the right answer. Proposed Editor's Note: Note: Due to the changing environment and unknown rates of adoption of the C99 standard, as of this writing it is not feasable to make "the right" choice as to which standard is appropriate to require. This choice will be reevaluated periodically, and if the c99 standard is being adopted quickly, the choice may change to require either c99 or exclusively c99. This open issue may continue to be the case during the early portion of formal balloting, with the final decision being made (and clearly announced) not later than when the actual adoption of the standard seems imminent. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 56 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 30) {aj-cal} Mon, 1 May 2000 08:34:12 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 257 Line: 9626 Section: cal Problem: In response to the editors note we should document that cal writes a calendar to standard output using the Julian calendar for dates from January 1, 1 through September 2, 1752 and the Gregorian calendar for dates from September 14, 1752 through December 31, 9999 as though the Gregorian calendar had been adopted on September 14, 1752. We should also add a note to the Future Directions section stating that a future revision of the standard may support locale specific recognition of the date of adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Action: Change 9630-9631: The cal utility shall write a Gregorian calendar to standard output. If the year operand is specified, a calendar for that year shall be written. To: The cal utility shall write a calendar to standard output using the Julian calendar for dates from January 1, 1 through September 2, 1752 and the Gregorian calendar for dates from September 14, 1752 through December 31, 9999 as though the Gregorian calendar had been adopted on September 14, 1752. Add to FUTURE DIRECTIONS. A future revision of the standard may support locale specific recognition of the date of adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Add to Change History The Description is updated to allow for traditional behavior for years before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 57 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 73) [DT-XCU-43] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the reviewers believe the text is clear and that the implementation defined action covers this. If the objector wishes, he can file an interp request against 1003.2b when adopted, however the reviewers believe there's no case to note that here. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 263 Line: 9841 Section: cd Problem: "none...shall be taken" could be read to prohibit any of the steps below from being taken in the implementation-defined case. Action: -> "none...need be taken" says it better. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 58 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 7) {pasc-1003.2-172b} Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:36:11 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 272 Line: 10203 Section: chgrp Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2 #172 has a note to editors for the revision. Change the entire consequences of errors subclauses for chgrp, chmod, and chown to be "Default.". Action: Replace the paragraph at lines 10203-10206 with Default. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 59 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 74) [DT-XCU-44] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_58 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 272 Line: 10203 Section: chgrp Problem: (From last time). This is incomplete in that if it's trying to chgrp an ordinary file named on the command line, it doesn't say what happens (this discusses only -R). Action: Replace paragraph with "Default", which is what it actually does. (See line 1095.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 60 nick@usenix.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 16) {Usenix6} Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:19:49 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The scope is being updated. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 274-275 Line: 10287,10345-10358 Section: chmod Problem: The scope of the Austin project explictly calls out the removal of octal modes from chmod as one of the legacy items to be removed. Did we reverse this decision? I notice that the octal modes are now MAN shaded ... Action: Either modify the long scope document (Austin 9r3) or remove the octal permissions (I prefer the former, but would not object either way). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 61 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 75) [DT-XCU-45] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is the standard style used within the document _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 274 Line: 10287 Section: chmod Problem: This whole section would be far more readable if the grammar was moved to the front of the section. Action: Move 10359-10394 to here. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 62 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 76) [DT-XCU-46] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete p 274 line 10289-10290 change "section" on 276 10379 to "clause" and on 10371 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 274 Line: 10292 Section: chmod Problem: "clause" is correct in odd font... it's "section" in the grammar (line 10371) that got munged in some other editorial change for ISO-ificiation. (Look at .2, line 2112, which uses "clause".) Action: Restore original .2 text. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 63 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 77) [DT-XCU-47] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: line 10287 previous concensus added octal modes back in, previously obsolescent, now restored as full mandatory. The change would reduce concensus. The scope is being updated. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 274 Line: 10292 Section: chmod Problem: Restore original .2-1992 text: Action: 1) Remove MAN margin code and shading. 2) Restore text from 215/2083 concerning obsolescent. ... of course, you might wish to change "obsolescent" to "Legacy". Actually, I'd prefer deleting octal mode completely, as clearly was indicated by the use of "obsolescent" in .2-1992. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 64 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 5) {pasc-1003.2-172} Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:31:53 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 277 Line: 10400 Section: chmod Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-172 has a note to editors for the revision: Change the entire consequences of errors subclauses for chgrp, chmod, and chown to be "Default.". (chgrp and chown are dealt with separately) Action: Replace the paragraph at lines 10400-10403 with Default. [Ed note add to CH The CONSEQUENCES OF ERRORS section is changed to Default as per IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-172 ] _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 65 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 78) [DT-XCU-48] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 277 Line: 10435 Section: chmod Problem: "and so on" is too informal. Action: Delete "and so on". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 66 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 6) {pasc-1003.2-172a} Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:34:09 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 281 Line: 10581 Section: chown Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-172 has a note to editors for the revision: Change the entire consequences of errors subclauses for chgrp, chmod, and chown to be "Default." Action: Replace lines 10581-10585 with Default. [Ed note add to CH The CONSEQUENCES OF ERRORS section is changed to Default as per IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-172 ] _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 67 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 79) [DT-XCU-49] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete p300 l 11358 add to end of line 11335 "The format of compressed files is unspecified and interchange of such files between implementations (including access via unspecified file sharing mechanisms) is not required by the standard". (note "standard" may be changed to be in style) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 299 Line: 11278 Section: compress Problem: I note that the file format for compressed files is not specified. One of three things must happen: 1) Specify it. 2) Add text: "The format of compressed files is unspecified and interchange of such files between implementations (including access via unspecified file sharing mechanisms) is not required by the standard". 3) Delete compress. Note that for there to be a normative reference to solve the problem that it must be a PAS or better. I don't believe such exists. Action: One of the above. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 68 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 80) [DT-XCU-50] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 299 Line: 11278 Section: compress Problem: I believe that there are IEEE/ISO rules about how patents are to be cited (since you don't choose to delete the command). There should be a citation of the patent number here. Even if not required, it would only be right to do so. Action: Cite the patent. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 69 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 81) [DT-XCU-51] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: editorial matter, this is the normal style _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 305 Line: 11517 Section: cp Problem: In isolation, it's difficult to distinguish between upper and lower case "p" when there isn't a baseline. at least in the font being used. Action: The original .2 had this set in CW font. It was much clearer. In general, restore the original .2 use of CW font for any literal text (as is noted in the front matter). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 70 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 14) {pasc-1003.2-168-p6} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 318 Line: 12005 Section: ctags Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified a problem with the ctags command. The notes to the editor stated: The ctags command: change "create" to "write" page 505 line 684. Action: Change "create" on P318, L12005 to "write". [Ed note: add to CH IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 is applied changing "create" to "write" in the DESCRIPTION.] _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 71 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 276) [DWC-7] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: marked up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 322 Line: 12164 Section: ctags Problem: (ctags: rationale) The output files section of the ctags utility description used to talk about Basic Regular Expressions. Now it talks about patterns. The rationale still uses "BREs". Action: Change "BREs" on P322, L12164 to "patterns". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 72 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 82) [DT-XCU-52] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: marked up Change guide->document, that 19->20 and twentieth->twenty-first _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 334 Line: 12625 Section: date Problem: 1) It's not a Guide (where did THAT come from?) 2) What century are we in? Action: I'd propose a fix to the first one, but I don't know where it came from so I'm afraid I'd miss context. On the second, "century 19" -> "century 20". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 73 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 83) [DT-XCU-53] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "systems support" -> "Implementations shall support" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 344 Line: 13050 Section: delta Problem: shall Action: "systems support" -> "systems shall support". (Or "implementations"?). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 74 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 84) [DT-XCU-54] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 352 Line: 13304 Section: diff Problem: If it's required to be "unsuitable", would it be a violation of the standard if it worked? Action: "unsuitable" -> "not intended to be suitable". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 75 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 85) [DT-XCU-55] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Also reviewers note: XCUd3 ERN 75 proposes adding the following text to the INPUT FILES: "If a file which is not a text file is encountered, a binary comparison shall be performed, and if they are not identical an unspecified message containing the two file names and the string "differ" shall be produced." The reviewers agreed in principle, however this change needs further cleanup such as the locale and output formats specifying before it can be made. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 352 Line: 13324 Section: diff Problem: For diff -r, if it encounters a binary file, what happens? This wording depends upon to whom the "shall" applies. If it applies to implementations, then implementations are required to enforce this (implicitly by producing a diagnostic). However, no diagnostic is specified. If it applies to applications (users) then the user is required to prune the tree of non-text files in advance, a burden I believe is unacceptable. The text at 13312 allows a lot of exceptions which are at least apparently in conflict with this. (That is, none of the excepted file types are (necessarily) text files, or necessarily not.) In the real world, all diffs that handle directories at all recognize binary files and simply say "they're different". Action: Add. "If a file which is not a text file is encountered, a binary comparison shall be performed, and if they are not identical an unspecified message containing the two file names and the string "differ" shall be produced." (This text can be added anywhere, but at the end of 13313 (between the existing sentences) seems reasonable.) If a stronger description of the message such as "Binary files differ: %s %s" is desired, that's fine with me. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 76 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 277) [DWC-8] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 369 Line: 13922 Section: ed Problem: (ed: options) The SUSv2, POSIX.2, and XCU6 draft 1 synopsis and options sections both specify a -p option. In XCU6 draft 2, the synopsis remained the same, but the options section changed "-p" to "-B" with no change bar. It remains "-B" in this draft. Action: Change "-B" on P369, L13922 back to "-p". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 77 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 278) [DWC-9] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 390 Line: 14781 Section: ex Problem: (ex: asynchronous events) The term "complete write" defined here is not a symbol; it is a term defined for use in remainder of the ex utility description. Action: Change "following symbol" on P390, L14781 to "following term". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 78 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 279) [DWC-10] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change indent level of given lines to match the corresponding ifs, and lower case the The. markedup _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 393 Line: 14896,14906 Section: ex Problem: (ex: extended description) P393, L14896 is not a stand alone sentence; it is a continuation of the sentence on P393, L14892-14896. Therefore, the first word on the line should not be capitalized. The same thing happens on P393, L14906. Action: Change "The" on P393, L14896 to "the". Change "The" on P393, L14906 to "the". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 79 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 280) [DWC-11] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 394 Line: 14921,14929 Section: ex Problem: (ex: extended description) The first common on P394, L14921 should not be there. The first common on P394, L14929 should not be there. Action: Change "was specified, the first" on P394, L14921 to "was specified the first". Change "was specified, the first" on P394, L14929 to "was specified the first". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 80 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 281) [DWC-12] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 395 Line: 14978 Section: ex Problem: (ex: extended description) A word is out of order. Action: Change "the edit entire buffer" on P395, L14978 to "the entire edit buffer". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 81 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 86) [DT-XCU-56] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 402 Line: 15238 Section: ex Problem: What double-quote character. (Confused quoting in input.). Action: "(' ) '" -> "('"')" (I think) (This problem appears in a number of places... search for all and fix. I've pointed out those I noted.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 82 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 87) [DT-XCU-57] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the reviewers believe the text is clear, changing the text would reduce concensus _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 404 Line: 15355 Section: ex Problem: The sentence starting "Regardless" is convoluted, and its meaning more so. I don't know what was intended so I can't improve it. Action: Ask original authors for help. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 83 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 88) [DT-XCU-58] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 407 Line: 15464 Section: ex Problem: Font mess. Action: "patterncanbedelimited" -> "pattern can be delimited". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 84 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 89) [DT-XCU-59] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: italicize _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 407 Line: 15485 Section: ex Problem: Unclear due to missing font change. Action: italicize (bold?) "commands" in "cannot be used in commands". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 85 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 90) [DT-XCU-60] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 408 Line: 15529 Section: ex Problem: extra ".". Action: "steps 3. through" =>"steps 3 through". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 86 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 282) [DWC-13] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 421,422 Line: 16022,16027,16048 Section: ex Problem: (ex: extended description) P1003.2b draft 13.1, P177, L1715 used a stylized x symbol to denote multiplication. In this draft that multiplication symbol has been translated to a "W". Action: Change the "W" on P421, L16022 to the symbol that was used in P1003.2b draft 13.1 or to "*". Make the same change on P421, L16027. Make the same change on P422, L16048. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 87 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 91) [DT-XCU-61] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 425 Line: 16192 Section: ex Problem: "". Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 88 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 92) [DT-XCU-62] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is not historic practice _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 430 Line: 16364 Section: ex Problem: Since % works on [], it's not obvious to me why showmatch doesn't. Action: Consider whether it should. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 89 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 93) [DT-XCU-63] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 433 Line: 16475 Section: ex Problem: Is this current? Do we want to include a (volatile) web address in a archival document? (This would be useful to retain until a "last minute" deletion.) Action: Mark for "last minute" deletion. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 90 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 94) [DT-XCU-64] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 436 Line: 16589 Section: ex Problem: Some odd Greek or ?? character. Action: Change to intended, whatever that is. (There are other instances; I've flagged those I noticed.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 91 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 95) [DT-XCU-65] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: presently out of scope _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 437 Line: 16637 Section: ex Problem: Can this revision fix this weak specification? Action: I move that we fix this. Failing that, add Editor's Note that we should reconsider at the last minute (as things may have changed by then). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 92 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 96) [DT-XCU-66] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 17063-17069 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 447 Line: 17063 Section: ex Problem: Conflicts with mandatory change at 15565. Action: Delete here. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 93 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 97) [DT-XCU-67] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 451 Line: 17239 Section: ex Problem: Font. Action: Bold (or ?) "tags". (It's a filename.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 94 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 98) [DT-XCU-68] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Reword two paras: Specify the tab stops. The application shall ensure that the argument tablist consists of either a single positive decimal integer or a list of tabstops. If a single number is given, tabs shall be set that number of column positions apart instead of the default 8. If a list of tabstops is given, the application shall ensure that it consists of a list of two or more positive decimal integers, separated by characters or commas, in ascending order. The tabs shall be set at those specific column positions. Each tab stop N shall be an integer value greater than zero, and... _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 460 Line: 17576 Section: expand Problem: Very EMB... only 5 lines apart! Repeats text at 17571. Action: Delete at 17571. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 95 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 99) [DT-XCU-69] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 18058-18060 "Users ...." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 474 Line: 18058 Section: fc Problem: EMB Repeats 18045. Action: Delete 18045. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 96 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 100) [DT-XCU-70] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 474 Line: 18069 Section: fc Problem: EMB Repeats 17978. Action: Delete 17878. (The parenthetical paragraph.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 97 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 101) [DT-XCU-71] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 479 Line: 18222 Section: file Problem: Need quotes. Action: regular file -> "regular file". (quote it). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 98 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 102) [DT-XCU-72] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: would break existing systems _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 481 Line: 18270 Section: file Problem: Since c89 and fort77 discuss .o files (in terms of their existence at least), it seems reasonable to also have file recognize the type.) To address the arguments from last time: Note that nothing in the standard requires 100% accuracy, in it says "attempt to" (on 18199), so if something masquerades as a binary file, so be it. (I've seen C programs and awk programs claim to be "English Text", so....) Note also that since you have added "executable file" you've opened exactly the same problems that object files open up. Action: Add "object file (the output from c89 -c or fort77 -c) object" _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 99 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 29) {integral-vs-integer-type} Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:37 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add to Rationale on file and od The use of a basic integer data type is intended to allow the implementation to choose a word size commonly used by applications on that architecture. page 482 l 18326 -> " a basic integer type" page 716 l 27325 -> " a basic integer data type" long long -> LL (action on AJ to file an interp do we need a single character notation for LL?) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 482 Line: 18326 Section: file Problem: Historically the Base specifications have used the term "extended integral type" to allow them to have extended integer types beyond the C standard. Now with c99 , the C standard has caught up, however the C standard uses different terminology ie. "integer type". We need to align the specs with the c99 terminology. Action: Review and change text as appropriate page 482 l 18326 page 716 l 27325 The group needs to verify the correct changes on a case by case basis. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 100 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 103) [DT-XCU-73] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the reviewers believe it is clear. These words come from .2b _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 483 Line: 18379 Section: file Problem: The description of the "x" code is at best confusing. Action: One of the following is probably what's meant: x Always true x True if the file is large enough to extend to the point of comparison. Pick one. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 101 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 104) [DT-XCU-74] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "24-hour periods" to "86400 second periods (days)" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 491 Line: 18690 Section: find Problem: The descriptions do NOT use the term "24-hour periods". Action: Delete item 7 (or recast to emphasize the now much clearer intent in the normative text). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 102 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 105) [DT-XCU-75] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the line numbers given are wrong. Add s for socket at 18541. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 491 Line: 18713 Section: find Problem: EMB All this is now obsolete, except type "s". Action: Delete paragraph. Add "s is for socket" at 18940. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 103 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 106) [DT-XCU-76] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: "24-hour" -> "86 400 second periods" at line 18732 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 492 Line: 18729 Section: find Problem: EMB Ditto objection to 18690. Action: Delete paragraph. (Or make accurate.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 104 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 107) [DT-XCU-77] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: replace with 1003.9 1992. Add to bibliography (informative references) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 501 Line: 19079 Section: fort77 Problem: POSIX.9 is a bad reference. Action: Fix (not sure of status of that work). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 105 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 108) [DT-XCU-78] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: use "may" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 502 Line: 19128 Section: fort77 Problem: "shall" in non-normative text. Action: This should be "will" or possibly "may". (Or is that happening at all?) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 106 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 109) [DT-XCU-79] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: lots of applications depend on this, and it should not be removed, deprecated, or made legacy. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 504 Line: 19189 Section: fuser Problem: Is this (obviously intentional but very possibly demented) interleaving of stdout and stderr really something that's worth codifying? Action: Either write all output to one stream (possibly with weasel words allowing current implementations) or provide an example of why the current implementation is intended to be the way it is (and thus useful). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 107 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 283) [DWC-14] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 507 Line: 19302 Section: gencat Problem: (gencat: extended description) P507, L19286 and L19311 say "see the header defined ...". P507, L19302 says "see the defined ...". All three should be consistent. Action: Change " defined" on P507, L19302 to " header defined". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 108 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 110) [DT-XCU-80] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 511 Line: 19436 Section: get Problem: Missing "%" in format spec. Action: On both lines, "%s\ts" -> "%s\t%s" _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 109 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 111) [DT-XCU-81] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: unknown what should be here. Missing string defn. Ask for advice in reviewers note _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 514 Line: 19535 Section: get Problem: Huh? I can't even begin to imagine what's going on with the Greek letter "pi" on this line. It's clear that it's intentional, but it makes no sense... most character sets (certainly SCCS's output) do not contain pi. Action: Do whatever was originally intended; this can't be it. (By any chance was a delta (used for an explicit space) intended?) ________________________________________