Document Number: AUSTIN/51r1 Title: XCUd3 Aardvark Change Request Report Revision Date: 2000-06-02 Source: Andrew Josey, Chair Action: for review This report contains the dispositions of the aardvark comments submitted against the XCU Draft 3. 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept ERN 188 Accept 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept as marked 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 Accept as marked 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_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change the grammar to: ::= a | ::= | , Add to the Change History: The grammer is updated. _____________________________________________________________________________ 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__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change the compress page from: The compress utility shall attempt to reduce the size of the named files by using adaptive Lempel-Ziv coding. to The compress utility shall attempt to reduce the size of the named files by using adaptive Lempel-Ziv coding algorithm. On systems not supporting adaptive Lempel-Ziv coding algorithm, the input files shall not be changed and an error value greater than two shall be returned. Add to Change History An error case is added for systems not supporting adaptive Lempel-Ziv coding. _____________________________________________________________________________ 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_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: a copy is now mirrored on the Open Group ftp site and the page updated accordingly _____________________________________________________________________________ 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?) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 110 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 28) {c99-getconf-1} Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:53:37 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept below, and in addition ensure that all POSIX_V6's end up with a leading underscore for consistency (line 198651, 19690) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 517 Line: 19666 Section: getconf Problem: As part of the introduction of the new c99 utility, we need to mark obsolete (LEGACY) the macros associated with the data models used by c89 , and introduce new macros for the data models used by c99. (see also the changes to create the c99 man page c99-c99-1) Action: Change occurrences of XBS5_ and _XBS5_ to POSIX_V6_ and _POSIX_V6 on lines 19666, 19669,19671, 19674, 19677, 19679, 19682, 19685, 19687, 19690, 19693, 19695 Change the cross references to point to c99 on lines 19671, 19679, 19687, 19695 Copy 19717-19732 renaming "XBS5" to "POSIX_V6" Mark the existing lines commencing XBS5_ (lines 19717-19732) as LEGACY (and retain as XSI rather than mandating them, it makes no sense to mandate LEGACY symbols) Change the See ALSO to point to c99 rather than c89 Add to the Change History The page is updated for alignment with c99. Specifically new macros for c99 programming environments are introduced. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 111 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 112) [DT-XCU-82] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: no change, unless someone wants to submit rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 518 Line: 19689 Section: getconf Problem: This tapdance deserves a bit of rationale. Action: I'm not sure what the intent is, but someone must know. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 112 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 113) [DT-XCU-83] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 19813-19818 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 521 Line: 19801 Section: getconf Problem: EMB The range from 19798 to 19804 duplicates almost but not quite exactly that at 19813 thru 19818. Action: Delete 19789 thru 19804. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 113 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 284) [DWC-15] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 521 Line: 19830 Section: getconf Problem: (getconf: see also) Missing comma. Action: Change "c89 the System" on P521, L19830 to "c89, the System". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 114 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 114) [DT-XCU-84] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 529 Line: 20112 Section: grep Problem: "pattern" isn't defined by the command line. Action: pattern -> pattern_list. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 115 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 115) [DT-XCU-85] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 550 Line: 20833 Section: ipcs Problem: The formats in this vicinity are in italic, not CW. Action: Fix font at 20833 20835 20841, etc. (It goes on for the next several pages.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 116 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 116) [DT-XCU-86] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: XBD changes cover it. no change needed _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 556 Line: 21050 Section: jobs Problem: For consistency with the changes made in "set". Note that this is NOT identically the same as set... some general normative requirements that are made in set are not repeated here so that they won't get out of phase. (See XSI for an example as to why repetition is bad.) 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 21056 and 21057.) Action: Replace paragraph at 21050 (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. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 117 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 117) [DT-XCU-87] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: do the change and also at line 21051 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 556 Line: 21053 Section: jobs Problem: need a space. Action: "job_id%+" -> "job_id %+". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 118 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 118) [DT-XCU-88] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: should be italic. This is current style. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 556 Line: 21058 Section: jobs Problem: Font. Action: I believe the command names on this line should be CW. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 119 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 119) [DT-XCU-89] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete first sentence. marked up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 557 Line: 21113 Section: jobs Problem: This text is probably redundant with other places, and old to boot. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 120 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 120) [DT-XCU-90] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: His is historic practice. However, add reviewers note with problem statement and proposed action. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 573 Line: 21750 Section: jobs Problem: The text, as written, says "the longest sequence", so (for example) \xaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbccccccccccddddddddddeeeeeeee would be a (numerically very large) single character. This does not occur for octal, because it says (in effect, but clunkily) no more than 3 octal digits. However, there's no length limitation for hex. (And maybe there shouldn't be, in the world of multibyte codes.) Action: Barring a better idea, add a note after 21766: Note: if a hexadecimal escape sequence which is followed by a hexadecimal digit is required, either the character in hex or the following character may be parenthesized using \( and \). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 121 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 121) [DT-XCU-91] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 605 Line: 23019 Section: ls Problem: The character "q" doesn't look much like the digit 1. (Either that or my glasses are real strange!). Action: "-q" -> "-1". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 122 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 122) [DT-XCU-92] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept as marked below: Add the following to the end of the paragraph on XCU6 draft 3 P614, L23360 (which corresponds to the 1st paragraph at the top of XCU5 P475): Except for the first argument to the eval built-in macro, all numeric built-in macro arguments shall be interpreted as decimal values. The string values produced as the defining text of the decr, divnum, incr, index, len, and sysval built-in macros shall be in the form of a decimal-constant as defined in the C-language. Delete P614, L23375-23378. Add to change history. The Open Group Base resolution BWG2000-006 is folded in. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 614 Line: 23378 Section: m4 Problem: To further address this issue (with a sample of 1, which is gm4). incr(012) -> 13 (Input interpreted as strictly decimal) expr(012) -> 10 (Input interpreted as octal) m4exit(012) -> 12 (Input interpreted as strictly decimal) For all the above 0x12 yields "ill-formed expression". Action: 1) Other implementations need to be checked. 2) Arrive at a conclusion about what *should* happen and define numeric input appropriately. Worst case: make leading 0 and 0x undefined. (Yetch.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 123 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 123) [DT-XCU-93] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 615 Line: 23405 Section: m4 Problem: 1) I believe it's unary & that's unsupported. Binary & (bitwise and) appears to be supported (from a sample of 1). 2) The use of quotations on this line is at best inconsistent. Since the quotations confuse things anyway... Action: Break the list out, take out all quotes and list in tabular format. (Not necessarily a table, just tabular). Make it "unary &". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 124 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 124) [DT-XCU-94] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 615 Line: 23439 Section: m4 Problem: Odd line break. Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 125 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 125) [DT-XCU-95] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "replacing it" with "replacing that definition". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 616 Line: 23450 Section: m4 Problem: This is incorrect grammar. The left side of the "," is plural, the right is singular. If the IEEE or ISO editors see this, they WILL fix it, and I believe inevitably changing its meaning. We need to fix this so the meaning (as well as the grammar) is correct Action: Based on what I can infer from existing implementations, change "replacing it" with "replacing each". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 126 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 126) [DT-XCU-96] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the reviewers felt that the example is better than none _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 617 Line: 23495 Section: m4 Problem: The example here is really more about make than about m4. Is it really useful to the reader? Action: Delete example (or, preferably, replace with something about m4). (I'd offer, but I know very little about m4. Volunteers?) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 127 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 127) [DT-XCU-97] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 620 Line: 23588 Section: mailx Problem: This should be "-f", not just "-". Action: "-" -> "-f" _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 128 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 128) [DT-XCU-98] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Replace "The default..." with "The default editor is unspecified. On XSI-conformant systems it is ed". . _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 621 Line: 23637 Section: mailx Problem: So what is the default editor in non-XSI systems? (This is a recurring problem: the XSI text that this draft is based upon had a lot of changes made to it that are in one way or another "wrong" for the ISO version. (That is, the de-shallification and other putative readability improvements, specification of intentionally "unspecified" (or "undefined") features, etc.) Each and every one of these unintended changes needs to be backed out or explicitly approved as an element of the revision. Many have been, but I believe that many remain (and many that I've not caught) that need to be restored.) Action: Replace "The default..." with "The default editor is unspecified. For XSI systems it is ed". . (I'd personally support making the default editor be always vi, and marking ed Legacy.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 129 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 129) [DT-XCU-99] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is straight from .2. An interpretation request is required to bring it into scope. If the submitters feels there is still a problem then they are recommended to use the the IEEE interpretations process. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 622 Line: 23674 Section: mailx Problem: Here pager is required to use a sh -c command, but later SHELL is allowed to be any shell. This *can* be resolved, but if SHELL is set to (say) csh in some environment, will that really happen? Action: I don't have a recommendation... experimentation needed to see what happens and thus what should be said. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 130 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 130) [DT-XCU-100] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: what is not specified is unspecified _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 627 Line: 23911 Section: mailx Problem: If it's more than one character?. Action: "If escape is more than one character, the effect is unspecified." _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 131 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 131) [DT-XCU-101] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 627 Line: 23929 Section: mailx Problem: Font. Action: ignoreeof should be bold to be consistent with the rest of the page (or CW to be consistent with the current .2!). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 132 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 132) [DT-XCU-102] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: add problem statement to reviewers note _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 632 Line: 24099 Section: mailx Problem: The lack of explanation of the issue isn't helpful. In general, the some explanation has been included in editors notes. Why not this one? Action: If not resolved this time, include the ERN text or a summary. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 133 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 133) [DT-XCU-103] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 24423-24425 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 640 Line: 24423 Section: mailx Problem: The business about debug doesn't help anyone; it's simply an observation that doesn't really need to be made. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 134 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 134) [DT-XCU-104] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Discussed. No change required. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 641 Line: 24469 Section: mailx Problem: Now that we have an integrated single volume, does this reasoning still apply. (That is, should we restore echo?) Action: Ask the group. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 135 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 135) [DT-XCU-105] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: use .2 words, "must"->"need to be" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 643 Line: 24539 Section: make Problem: "application shall execute". "Application" doesn't apply to a makescript except as a stretch. Action: Restore original .2 wording (which in this case did use "must", but not quite as a shall). (Or change that to "shall" (but not "application shall"). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 136 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 136) [DT-XCU-106] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is approved style _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 643 Line: 24545 Section: make Problem: Need period after "target name". Action: Add it. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 137 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 137) [DT-XCU-107] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is approved style _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 644 Line: 24584 Section: make Problem: "touch" should be CW (it's literal text). Action: Make CW. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 138 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 138) [DT-XCU-108] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is approved style _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 645 Line: 24635 Section: make Problem: can Action: -> may _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 139 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 139) [DT-XCU-109] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_140 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 645 Line: 24639 Section: make Problem: EMB Repeated text at 24656. Action: Delete at 24639. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 140 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 2) {aj-make-001} Thu, 16 Mar 2000 07:31:13 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 645 Line: 24639 Section: make Problem: The paragraph at line 24639-24642 is repeated at line 24656. The 2b instructions were not clear here. The value of the SHELL environment variable shall not be used as a macro and shall not be modified by defining the SHELL macro in a makefile or on the command line. All other environment variables, including those with null values, shall be used as macros, as defined in Macros on page 649. Action: Delete the first occurrence at line 24639 _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 141 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 140) [DT-XCU-110] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 647 Line: 24697 Section: make Problem: EMB Duplicate text. Action: Delete at 24707. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 142 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 141) [DT-XCU-111] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 648 Line: 24767 Section: make Problem: How can a non-comment line appear *before* the first non-comment line? Action: -> "appears as the first non-comment". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 143 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 142) [DT-XCU-112] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: specific editing instructions needed before this request can be considered _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 648 Line: 24785 Section: make Problem: "does some" is pretty handwavy. Action: Someone who cares make it specific, or delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 144 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 143) [DT-XCU-113] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is approved style _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 649 Line: 24828 Section: make Problem: can Action: -> may. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 145 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 144) [DT-XCU-114] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 650 Line: 24851 Section: make Problem: Extra "." Action: "1." -> "1" _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 146 loisg@objectspace.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 3) {20000316a} Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:35:43 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 653 Line: 24968 Section: make Problem: Second occurrence of the word "macro" in this sentence is a mistake: The meaning of the $< macro macro is otherwise unspecified. Action: Delete the second occurrence of the word "macro." _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 147 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 145) [DT-XCU-115] 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: 659 Line: 25244 Section: make Problem: This needs to be rewritten, but it also points out a severe flaw in the rewrite at line 24699. As it stands, it requires an ISO conformant implementation to ONLY search the first two filenames listed, and because there's no room for extension, the additional ones can't be. (Thus precluding a system from being BOTH XSI and ISO conformant.) Action: 1) (At 24699) Restore original .2 text with implementation-defined. 2) (At 24699) Add on "On XSI systems, the additional files ... are searched, and no other files shall be searched." ("no other" retains the original meaning, but if it allowed additional files, that would be fine with me.) 3) Rephrase at 25244 to reflect that 2 above was done. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 148 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 146) [DT-XCU-116] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 662 Line: 25371 Section: make Problem: Null character (not NUL). Action: '' -> '"' (also at 24752). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 149 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 147) [DT-XCU-117] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 680 Line: 25969 Section: more Problem: "shall shall" (across line break). Action: Delete one. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 150 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 150) [DT-XCU-120] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 706 Line: 706 Section: nm Problem: As for a previous objection... what's the ISO version? Action: Change "is decimal." to "is unspecified. On XSI conformant systems it shall be decimal." (I'd personally prefer hex, but...). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 151 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 148) [DT-XCU-118] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 685 Line: 26187 Section: more Problem: This should be "-c", not just "-" to specify the line number (see .2b) Action: "-" -> "-c". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 152 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 149) [DT-XCU-119] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 689 Line: 26324 Section: mv Problem: This is a single long sentence... Action: Change "is a terminal." to "is a terminal," (comma). "is specified." to "is specified," (comma) "The mv" to "the mv" (lower case, to continue the sentence.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 153 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 151) [DT-XCU-121] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 706 Line: 26941 Section: nm Problem: Shading wrong. Action: Shade "(equivalent to -t o)." as well. (And on 26950). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 154 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 152) [DT-XCU-122] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: specific editing instructions required before this can be considered _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 709 Line: 27047 Section: nm Problem: Reconcile (by moving together and editing for sense) paragraphs at 27047 and 27054. Action: Move, reconcile. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 155 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 153) [DT-XCU-123] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 714 Line: 27233 Section: od Problem: Change XSI to MAN. (This fixes a nasty little bug that should be fixed in the ISO version.) Action: XSI -> MAN. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 156 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 154) [DT-XCU-124] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 715 Line: 27273 Section: od Problem: Again, no ISO default. Action: Change "the operand..." to "the results are unspecified. On XSI conformant systems, the operand shall be assumed to be an offset.". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 157 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 155) [DT-XCU-125] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 724 Line: 27649 Section: paste Problem: Need bold. Action: "are lines in file" -> "are lines in file". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 158 eggert@twinsun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 21) {2000-04-25T21:56:20Z} Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:22:33 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add a reviewers note with the problem statement/action _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 753 Line: 785 Section: pax Problem: Draft 3 says: pax shall write a mtime record for each file in write or copy modes if the file system of the underlying implementation supports time granularities smaller than that required by the ustar header block described in ustar Interchange Format. Here are two problems with this spec: * Suppose the underlying implementation has subsecond granularity, but the file happens to have a time stamp that is on an integer boundary, perhaps because it was previously extracted from a ustar file. In this case, pax need not output an mtime record because it does not lose any information by outputting only the ustar header. Omitting the mtime in this case promotes interchange with traditional tar implementations. * Conversely, suppose the underlying implementation has 64-bit time_t but no subsecond granularity. If pax encounters a time stamp out of the ustar range, it must write an mtime record, because otherwise it will put an inaccurate (overflowed) time stamp into the ustar header. Action: Here is a proposed rewording of lines 28784-28787. pax shall write a mtime record for each file in write or copy modes if the file's modification time cannot be represented exactly in the ustar header block described in ustar Interchange Format. This can occur if the time is out of ustar range, or if the file system of the underlying implementation supports non-integer time granularities and the time is not an integer. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 159 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 156) [DT-XCU-126] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 727 Line: 27737 Section: patch Problem: shallification Action: "attempts" -> "shall attempt". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 160 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 157) [DT-XCU-127] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: add the same get out clause to step 4 ("If the file exists, the patch utility shall use this file name") _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 729 Line: 27806 Section: patch Problem: It is unclear from this whether ALL the steps are taken, or whether the first successful step stops the search. (Again, it may be "obvious", but "obvious" == "interpretation bait".) Action: Replace the sentence with: If no file operand is specified, patch shall perform the following steps, in order, until one finds a filename to be used. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 161 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 158) [DT-XCU-128] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: it is under control of an option, namely XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 729 Line: 27820 Section: patch Problem: Override of .2 recommendation. The original .2b was quite explicit... that this is questionable to begin with, and if it IS done, that it should be under the control of an option. Action: 1) Restore original .2b rationale, specifically lines 996/10099 (starting with "It is strongly...". 2) Follow that recommendation: create an option and enable this behavior on that option. (I'll write the text.) 3) Change the now restored text to "Consistent with the recommendation of the original .2 committee, is required to allow a file to be checked out from SCCS if it is not already there. Systems which use other revision control systems should use to enable corresponding behavior." _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 162 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 159) [DT-XCU-129] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 730 Line: 27864 Section: patch Problem: EMB Redundant with 27897 Action: Delete at 27864. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 163 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 160) [DT-XCU-130] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is out of scope. Please file an interp if desi _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 737 Line: 28127 Section: pax Problem: For clarity (and emphasis). Action: Add to end of paragraph: ", even if the filenames are recorded with absolute pathnames on the media.". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 164 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 9) {pasc-1003.2-168} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 737 Line: 28127 Section: pax Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified the following change as notes to the editor: Note to Austin Group: specifically permit mkdir() and mkfifo() calls in pax to ignore an EEXIST error. Action: Add a new paragraph after P737, L28127: "If an attempt is made to extract a directory when the directory already exists, this shall not be considered to be an error. If an attempt is made to extract a FIFO when the FIFO already exists, this shall not be considered to be an error." [Ed note, add to CH PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 is applied clarifying that mkdir and mkfifo calls can ignore an EEXIST error when extracting an archive. ] _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 165 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 161) [DT-XCU-131] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this will require an interp against .2b when approved. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 740 Line: 28253 Section: pax Problem: At 28270, it observes that the filename will be treated as an ordinary file by old versions of pax. However, it doesn't here. It appears it should. Action: Copy (with touch up) text from 28270 to here. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 166 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 162) [DT-XCU-132] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 741 Line: 28320 Section: pax Problem: Indent error. Action: Outdent paragraph here (it's not part of the write bullet item, but part of the enclosing "invalid" item.) linkdata (28326) should come out one notch, too. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 167 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 163) [DT-XCU-133] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: remove the comma before backreferences _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 743 Line: 28405 Section: pax Problem: "\n" *is* a backreference. Action: Either remove ", backreferences" or convert to "(backreferences)" (a parenthetical remark). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 168 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 164) [DT-XCU-134] 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. This requires an interpretation request _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 743 Line: 28413 Section: pax Problem: (We'll try again.) 1) Does this apply to -r, -w, or -rw? (Presumably w and rw.) (If it applies to -r, that would imply either that the restored file has its time (from before being rewritten) restored, or that the content of the archive is changed. Thus I don't think so.) 2) Assuming -r or -rw, "Archived file" can be interpreted as either the file written to the archive or the file read (from the file system) to be inserted into the archive. 3) Someone who has read access may not have the permissions to execute utime() to actually change the access time (to other than the current time). (Pay me now or pay me later (with an interpretation.)) Replace with: -t When reading files from the file system, and if the user has the permissions required by utime() to do so, set the access time of each file read to the access time that it had before being read by pax. Note that this may cause the access time update caused by some other activity (which occurs while the file is being read) to be overwritten. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 169 a.gruenbacher@computer.org Bug in XSHd3 (rdvk# 17) {no ide no description either} Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:02:02 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_171 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 749 Line: 28640 Section: pax Problem: >From the descripiton of the ustar interchange format it is not clear what the encoding of size values is in the ustar headers vs. the extended headers. As I understand the text, and from looking at tar implementations, I understand lengths are specified as follows: - Lengths in header blocks are formatted as octets of octal digits (values '0'-'7'), with a maximum of 11 digits (8 GB). - Lengths in extended headers are formatted as octets of decimal digits (values '0'-'9'). The effected passages in the text are: page 749 line 28640 (both size fields) Doesn't make clear the size fields are encoded differently. page 751 line 28740 (size in extended attributes) Likewise. Also, the maximum file size in the standard ustar header here is given as (999 999 999 999) decimal, which is wrong. The correct value is (77 777 777 777) octal, which is just 8 GB. page 755 line 28883 (size in ustar header) Doesn't mention the size field in the header is encoded as the octal textual representation. Action: Changes in the description: page 749 line 28640 no change is needed. Before line @ 749 line 28646 Add a paragraph about the two different encodings used. page 751 line 28740 Add a note saying that this field uses the decimal encoding. Correct the wrong limit given (see description above). page 755 line 28883 Add a note saying that this field uses octal encoding. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 170 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 165) [DT-XCU-135] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 749 Line: 28646 Section: pax Problem: Remove possible ambiguity. Action: "1" -> "1 (the digit one)". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 171 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 285) [DWC-16] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 751 Line: 28704 Section: pax Problem: (gid, size, and uid limits requiring extended headers) As noted in Andreas Gruenbacher's objections, the requirement that extended headers be supplied in pax format archives have specified limits that assume the ustar headers used decimal values instead of octal values and that the ustar headers did not require a or NULL terminator. The corrected values that should have been used are presented here. Action: Change "99 999 999" on P751, L28704 to "2 097 151 (octal 7 777 777)". Change "999 999 999 999" on P752, L752 to "8 589 934 591 (octal 7 777 777 777)". Change "99 999 999" on P752, L28748 to "2 097 151 (octal 7 777 777)". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 172 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 166) [DT-XCU-136] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 751 Line: 28710 Section: pax Problem: Extraneous space. Action: "-oinvalid= UTF-8" -> "-oinvalid=UTF-8". (Actually, this should all be CW anyway!). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 173 eggert@twinsun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 23) {2000-04-25T22:49:06Z} Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:22:33 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add reviewers note with the problem statement in _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 753 Line: 28791 Section: pax Problem: A pax implementation on a single platform should not be allowed to lose information when it writes an extended header time and then reads it back in again. With the current wording, pax might read a different time than the time that it wrote, even on the same platform, causing problems when other utilities (e.g. make) use the retrieved files. This is because the current wording does not require that pax must output a complete representation of the file's time stamp, and because it assumes that any fractional underlying time granularity is a negative power of 2, 5, or 10. Action: Change the sentence in lines 28791-28793 to read as follows: In read or copy mode, the pax utility shall truncate the time of a file to the greatest value that is not greater than the input header file time. In write or copy mode, the pax utility shall output a time exactly if it can be represented exactly as a decimal number, and otherwise shall generate only enough digits so that the same time shall be recovered if the file is extracted on a system whose underlying implementation supports the same time granularity. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 174 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 167) [DT-XCU-137] 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 use of the term block is consistent _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 753 Line: 28795 Section: pax Problem: This is a horrific mis-use of the word "block" (check the IEEE dictionary; I don't have one), particularly in light of the next paragraph where it comes close to being used correctly. "block" (particularly on tape) is a concept of physical I/O, which contains a group of (logical) records. (Think of a "block of seats" or rooms.) Action: Use "logical records" to mean the 512 byte entities, and "physical block" to mean the groups. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 175 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 168) [DT-XCU-138] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change in this volume to "in IEEE Std" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 754 Line: 28836 Section: pax Problem: Ed Note about text in XCU but not .2b.... I'd claim it's an error in .2b (unless presented with data to the contrary). The same text appears in .1-1990 (from before the utilities were created) on P176, L 307 (applying only to cpio, but...). Note that the business about "in this volume..." needs to be changed to refer to XSH more than XCU (altho to XCU, as well). Probably just "in this standard". Action: Retain the text, as is. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 176 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 169) [DT-XCU-139] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: line number 28889 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 755 Line: 28989 Section: pax Problem: Clarity. Action: "6" -> "type 6". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 177 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 170) [DT-XCU-140] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The new text should be marked MAN (and the revnote removed) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 759 Line: 29024 Section: pax Problem: Ed note here and at 29036: 1) The comment for 28836 applies (even more strongly) here. 2) There's a lot of repeated text involved in these two paragraphs. Action: Retain only one copy of each of the sentences. .1-1990 might serve as a guide. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 178 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 172) [DT-XCU-142] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 29164-29168 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 760 Line: 29093 Section: pax Problem: Repeated text. Action: Delete here (in favor of 29164). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 179 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 171) [DT-XCU-141] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 761 Line: 29106 Section: pax Problem: Inconsistent fonts for cpio and ustar. Action: Use CW for both (as part of a general CW-izing pass). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 180 eggert@twinsun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 22) {{2000-04-25T22:49:06Z} Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:22:33 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 767 Line: 29406 Section: pax Problem: The pax extended header section does address the issue of negative time stamps. These time stamps do occur in practice, and there should be some commentary about them. Action: page 767 line 29406. Insert the following sentences. Portable file time stamps cannot be negative. If pax encounters a file with a negative time stamp in copy or write mode, it can reject the file, substitute a nonnegative time stamp, or generate a nonportable time stamp with a leading '-'. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 181 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 173) [DT-XCU-143] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 776 Line: 29779 Section: pr Problem: Use right term. Action: "messaging system" -> "message catalog". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 182 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 174) [DT-XCU-144] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 780 Line: 29933 Section: printf Problem: Yes, it's normative. Action: Move to 29893. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 183 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 175) [DT-XCU-145] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 787 Line: 30249 Section: ps Problem: More "no ISO case left". Action: "Terminal identifiers shall be given" -> "Terminal identifiers shall be given in an implementation-defined format. On XSI conformant systems, they shall be given...". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 184 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 176) [DT-XCU-146] 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: 796 Line: 30604 Section: qalter Problem: This whole paragraph is over-complicated. Why do we care about the representation of the time. All we care is that whatever semantic is lost in this muddle is actually implemented. Action: 1) Experts rewrite to omit as much "Seconds since the Epoch" as possible. 2) There's NO reason to refer explicitly to the defined term. Just delete the last sentence. (Since it's all one document now.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 185 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 177) [DT-XCU-147] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: make them italic _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 798 Line: 30660 Section: qalter Problem: The bulleted single character items on this and the next several pages change fonts with reckless abandon (e, u, s, o, n in several contexts). Since they're literal text, they should all be CW font (the one font that appears to have been omitted). Action: Convert all to CW. Check related sections too (e.g. pg 808 and others). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 186 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 178) [DT-XCU-148] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: editors will handle _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 798 Line: 30677 Section: qalter Problem: The reference to a different document is no longer needed. Just delete the whole parenthetical remark. Action: Delete this parenthetical remark here and everywhere it or one like it appears. (We don't need these for terms defined within the standard, now that it's one document.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 187 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 179) [DT-XCU-149] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The ",," should be "," _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 801 Line: 30816 Section: qalter Problem: Double commas (2 pair). Given the sometimes odd syntax of the batch stuff, it's possible that this is intended. If so, it deserves a note. If not, put in just single commas. Action: Either ",,"->"," or add note. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 188 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 180) [DT-XCU-150] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Need to enumerate changes _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 804 Line: 30938 Section: qalter Problem: I see no normative text backing up this quasi-normative assertion (about -W). Either it needs to be made normative (that standards writers promise not to step into that namespace) or deleted. Action: Delete, here and the dozen or so other identical instances. (Note... I have an objection relevant to -W in XBD... if fixed there, this might stand as is, although it's a bit odd to make a reference like this to rationale elsewhere.) _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 189 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 181) [DT-XCU-151] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 812 Line: 31256 Section: qmove Problem: Is this just a leftover? Delete or rewrite. Action: Delete paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 190 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 182) [DT-XCU-152] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: wording as per 2d, this would make it informative _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 814 Line: 31302 Section: qmst Problem: This comment about quoting belongs in Application Usage. Action: Move to application usage. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 191 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 183) [DT-XCU-153] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: wording as per 2d, this would appear to make normative changes _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 826 Line: 31758 Section: qselect Problem: The sentence "The string..." appears to want to imply more than it can. It doesn't acknowledge local shell expansions that will occur (unless quoted) when typing to a shell. Action: Try: "The string specified in the name _option-argument_ shall be passed (after any shell expansions that may occur if the command is typed on a command line) uninterpreted, to the server." (I'd say this belongs in Application Usage, except that I'd be very unsurprised to see a test writer try to verify this without taking shell expansion into account.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 192 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 184) [DT-XCU-154] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 830 Line: 31884 Section: qselect. Problem: Missing $(), I believe. Action: qdel $(qselect -s q) seems what's intended. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 193 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 185) [DT-XCU-155] 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, the text is as per the base document _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 836 Line: 32083 Section: qstat Problem: I don't see any actual use of COLUMNS, LINES, LOGNAME, TERM, and TZ. Why are they listed? Action: Explain or delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 194 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 186) [DT-XCU-156] 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, the text is as per the base document _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 840 Line: 32232 Section: qsub Problem: The set of environment variables is inconsistent with those listed in the Environment Variables section. Worse, it's oddly inconsistent. Even if there's a distinction between those passed on (listed here) and those that affect the command locally (those in Environment Variables), the fact that LANG, but not LC_* are passed on doesn't seem right. Action: Reconcile (ask experts what was intended). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 195 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 187) [DT-XCU-157] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 840 Line: 32249 Section: qsub Problem: Bad page break. Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 196 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 188) [DT-XCU-158] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_197 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 844 Line: 32400 Section: qsub Problem: "REFERENCE UNDEFINED". Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 197 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 15) {aj-qsub-1} Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:06:28 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (this is fixed under consistency) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 844 Line: 32400 Section: qsub Problem: The Note here refers to an undefined reference. On inspection of IEEE Std 1003.2d, this refers to a table in rationale (table E-2) which contains a list of resource limits from the then at the time of standardization P1003.1a draft. These resource limits are not in todays P1003.1a or any other draft in the scope of this revision. We should strike the -l resource_list clause (lines 32388-32402) and any references to it (such as in Rationale, 32691-32693). Line 380 onwards of rationale of 1003.2d basically states that this use is not portable "any implementor should use section 4.10 of IEEE P1003.1a and the following paragraphs as a guideline". We should remove the affected text. An interpretation has been filed against 1003.2d Action: Delete lines 32388-32401 Delete lines 32691-32693 Add note to change history: "The -l option has been removed as there is no portable description of the resources that are allowed or required by the batch job". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 198 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 189) [DT-XCU-159] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete "that conforms... standard," on lines 34261-34262 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 845 Line: 32462 Section: qsub Problem: Bad reference. Action: Just remove; path_name is locally defined. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 199 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 190) [DT-XCU-160] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 846 Line: 32504 Section: qsub Problem: "yy" and "nn" Action: should be "y" and "n" (CW). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 200 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 191) [DT-XCU-161] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 849 Line: 32629 Section: qsub Problem: Bad reference to backslash. Action: "(' )'" -> "(\"\)" _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 201 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 192) [DT-XCU-162] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 849 Line: 32634 Section: qsub Problem: very confusing sentence. Action: Replace with: "An implementation may ignore lines which, according to the syntax of the shell that will interpret the script, are comments." _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 202 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 193) [DT-XCU-163] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 858 Line: 32953 Section: renice Problem: I thought we fixed these last time... this is "nice-related", not "nice with the -related option". Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 203 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 194) [DT-XCU-164] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "unlinkable files" to "files that cannot be unlinked (removed)" on line 33129 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 863 Line: 33129 Section: rm Problem: Does "unlinkable" means files that can be unlinked, or files that cannot be unlinked? According to the normal rules of grammar, "unlinkable" would mean "a file that cannot be linked to". However, in this case, it means "a file that cannot be UNlinked (removed)". (This is inferred from the fact that rm doesn't create links.) (Yes, .2 was that way; that doesn't necessarily make it right). Action: Either rewrite, or change to "un-unlink()-able" (with the punctuation shown). _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 204 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 195) [DT-XCU-165] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 865 Line: 33191 Section: rmdel Problem: Unclear language... what is "a single instance file". Action: Replace with: If exactly one file operand appears, and it is "-", the standard.... _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 205 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 196) [DT-XCU-166] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is .2 , and using the approved style for application requirements change the wording to: "..which in order to succeed the application shall ensure...." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 868 Line: 33257 Section: rmdir Problem: "the application shall ensure" implies that the application is actually responsible to assure that the directory is empty before making the call (rather than just detecting it as an error). (Now, for the call to succeed, the directory must be empty, but the wording as it stands can be interpreted as a stronger requirement.) Action: Restore original POSIX.1 "shall" wording. This is actually much deeper than I initially realized. The original "shall" didn't explicitly specify who was responsible to make the check. The conversion to "must" did make it explicit that it was the application, and "application shall ensure" makes that even clearer. However, if thought about VERY carefully, it's actually a requirement on the *implementation*. The implementation is required to either return an error or succeed. One of the errors it's required to return is that the directory is not empty. Thus I claim it's a shall on the implementation. (And, in general, most former "must"s are good candidates to have this same problem.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 206 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 197) [DT-XCU-167] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 872 Line: 33383 Section: sact Problem: The various terms in metabrackets are inconsistent in font. On the format line itself, they are in CW-Italic. The bulleted items are conventional italic. Since these are meta-variables, I believe that Italic (or Roman) is appropriate. Action: Fix fonts to conform with style guide. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 207 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 198) [DT-XCU-168] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: "The command operand can be one" -> "The command operand can be the name of one of...". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 874 Line: 33437 Section: sccs Problem: The operand can't be one of the executables (what, the executable file?), but it can be its name. Action: "The command operand can be one" -> "The command operand may be the name of one of...". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 208 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 199) [DT-XCU-169] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Agree in principle but would need specific edits to be proposed for this to be actionable _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 876 Line: 33514 Section: sccs Problem: Most of the bullet items on this page mix normative requirements with application usage information. Action: Split properly. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 209 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 200) [DT-XCU-170] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: editors will sort as appropriate _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 880 Line: 33665 Section: sed Problem: I believe that the reference here is an illegal form; it's easily fixed by changing "on 881" to "below" (since it's so close). Action: Check on legality of this form, or replace with "below". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 210 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 201) [DT-XCU-171] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: should be \xabc\xdefx _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 881 Line: 33695 Section: sed Problem: Troff macro visible (.mc |) (and the ", I think.) Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 211 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 202) [DT-XCU-172] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 883 Line: 33804 Section: sed Problem: The 'n' in \n should probably be italic in this case. Action: Italic. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 212 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 203) [DT-XCU-173] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Wording as per 2b, _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 883 Line: 33806 Section: sed Problem: clarity. Action: "each backslash" -> "each other backslash" (don't confuse with \n). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 213 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 204) [DT-XCU-174] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: italicize the n _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 884 Line: 33817 Section: sed Problem: This n should be italic; its a numeric variable. The other bullet items in the list are literal characters, and should be CW. Action: Italic n, CW the rest. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 214 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 206) [DT-XCU-176] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: "is not allowed in an RE" -> "is not allowed in a sed RE" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 885 Line: 33864 Section: sed Problem: Seems self-contradictory. Action: "is not allowed in an RE" -> "is not allowed by the general definition of Regular Expression in this standard.". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 215 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 207) [DT-XCU-177] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add a reviewers note with the problem statement _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 888 Line: 33990 Section: sh Problem: I objected to this one last time, and this still isn't at all clear. I *may* (??) understand what the response was driving at, but the text here (at least in the absence of corresponding rationale) is simply unclear (at least out of context... again "interpretation bait".) (Something about the LFS and stat() not failing.) There is nothing I see under the stat() command that permits it to fail on a very large file (although that is a dicey area). If a potentially standards violating (because stat() fails) behavior is being special cased, it can't be said in this little text. Based on what's there.... The size of the file doesn't matter, it's its the size of the name. (Also, shallify.) Action: Choose one or both: "does not fail due to the size of a file" -> "shall not fail due to the size of a file name". OR On some systems, errors might occur during pathname expansion that are caused by the presence of very large files. The implementation shall take the necessary precautions to assure that such failures do not impact the correct operation of sh. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 216 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 208) [DT-XCU-178] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: add at 33995 "with an extension for support of leading plus sign ('+') as noted below. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 888 Line: 33997 Section: sh Problem: The MAN extension here then breaks the statement at 33994 that it conforms to the Utility Syntax Guidelines. Action: Either rewrite at 33994 or delete this. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 217 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 209) [DT-XCU-179] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 890 Line: 34072 Section: sh Problem: It's not the user, it's the process, that's under discussion. Action: "the user" -> "the process". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 218 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 210) [DT-XCU-180] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The wording is as per .2 , and this would appear to change the meaning. An interp should be filed by the submitter if he feels there is still a problem _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 894 Line: 34253 Section: sh Problem: As written, multiple edits would create multiple history entries. Action: "Any command" -> "The first command...". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 219 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 211) [DT-XCU-181] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The wording is as per .2 , and this would appear to change the meaning. An interp should be filed by the submitter if he feels there is still a problem _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 897 Line: 34395 Section: sh Problem: Two problems: 1) The sentence beginning "Errors..." at line 34393 should also apply here. 2) "reverse the direction of that command" to me reads as "change that command so it's direction is..." (that is, permanently change it). (Again... if it's misinterpretable, it's interpretation bait!) That isn't what's actually done. Action: Copy "Errors..." to here. Add: "The original f, F, t, or T command continues to be remembered without modification" or change "reverse the direction of that command" to "in the reverse direction from that command" (to avoid implying a change.) (The first form could be applied to the ";" command benignly, for symmetry.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 220 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 212) [DT-XCU-182] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_221 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 900 Line: 34541 Section: sh Problem: EMB Duplicate text (see 34575). Action: Delete here. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 221 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 24) {ajosey-sh-900} Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:17:16 +0100 (BST) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 900 Line: 34544-34551 Section: sh Problem: Lines 34544-34551 in Application Usage are repeated in the Rationale in lines 34754-34578 Action: delete lines 34544-34551 _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 222 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 213) [DT-XCU-183] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 906 Line: 34744 Section: sort Problem: In the case of -c, only a single file is permitted (see 34759). Action: Remove brackets and ellipsis around "file" in the -c case only. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 223 ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 4) {pasc-1003.2-174} Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:28:49 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 906 Line: 34751-34573 Section: sort Problem: PASC Interpretation #174 has a note to editors for the revision. Note to editors (not part of the interpretation) Revise the description (4.58.2) of sort. Comparisons are based on one or more sort keys extracted from each line of input (or, if no sort keys are specified, the entire line up to, but not including, the terminating newline character)... Action: Replace the paragraph with the following text: Comparisons shall be based on one or more sort keys extracted from each line of input (or, if no sort keys are specified, the entire line up to, but not including, the terminating newline character), and shall be performed using the collating sequence of the current locale. [Ed note add to CH The DESCRIPTION of comparisons is updated for IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-1992 #174] _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 224 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 12) {pasc-1003.2-168-p4} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 908 Line: 34858 Section: sort Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified a problem with the sort command. The notes to the editor stated: For the sort command: this is fixed by the proposed change for dd above (2.9.1.4). This is mainly addressed by changes to page 11, one additional change is proposed below. Action: Change "placed in" on P908, L34858 to "written to". [Ed note, add to CH IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-1992 #168 is applied.] _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 225 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 214) [DT-XCU-184] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change to -t"" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 909 Line: 34893 Section: sort Problem: Unbalanced quote around space. Action: Change to -t"", with "" in italic (since it's not a literal character). (Either that or '-t " "' or use the delta character used in printf formats.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 226 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 215) [DT-XCU-185] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 910 Line: 34920 Section: sort Problem: What "non-obsolescent" versions (or rather, what obsolescent versions)? I think this sentence can probably be dropped. Action: Delete sentence. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 227 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 216) [DT-XCU-186] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 911 Line: 34963 Section: sort Problem: For clarity. Action: "manually" -> "explicitly". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 228 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 217) [DT-XCU-187] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Remove the reviewers note. The reviewers felt that this would change existing behavior and would need an interpretation request of the base document to bring it into scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 916 Line: 35103 Section: strings Problem: I agree. Action: I agree. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 229 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 218) [DT-XCU-188] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 919 Line: 35208 Section: strip Problem: "shall" -> "shall be". However, "similar" is better; they may not be exactly identical. (See 35260.) As currently worded, it requires exact identity. Action: Change to "The effect of strip shall be similar to the use of the -s option...". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 230 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 219) [DT-XCU-189] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add new entry (XSI shaded in the middle of a page of text that is already XSI shaded) after P924, L35439: tabs (-tabs) Synonym for tab0 (tab3). Delete P927, L35551-35552. [It could be argued that tab0, tab1, tab2, tab3, tabs, and -tabs are all combination modes since setting any one of these has the side effect of clearing the others. (But, this would also apply to ispeed, ospeed, and speed and a large number of other fields.) Also note that tab3 is currently defined on P924, L35434 and here on P927, L35551.] _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 927 Line: 35551 Section: stty Problem: This is (I believe) NOT a combination mode. Move to correct section. Action: Move _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 231 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 220) [DT-XCU-190] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 928 Line: 35599 Section: stty Problem: Missing ">", wrong font. Action: " "". Should match font on line above. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 232 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 221) [DT-XCU-191] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Replace para at: 35628-35361 with "Output modes are specified only for XSI-conformant systems. All implementations are expected to provide stty operands corresponding to all of the output modes they support." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 929 Line: 35628 Section: stty Problem: Huh? This needs "inverse XSI" shading or better text. As it stands it's just confusing. Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 233 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 222) [DT-XCU-192] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Delete the words "In many ways outside the scope of this volume of .... ," on line 35362 and change "stty..." to "The stty utility..." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 929 Line: 35652 Section: stty Problem: EMB It's no longer out of scope of the standard. Action: Delete paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 234 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 223) [DT-XCU-193] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 929 Line: 35656 Section: stty Problem: EMB Again, silly as of this rewrite. Action: Remove paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 235 W.BRISCOE@ponl.com BUG in xcutext.pdf (rdvk# 1) Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:18:00 0000 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Outside of the present scope _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 931 Line: 35674 Section: 4. Problem: su is omitted. I assume that is deliberate. Action: Rectify the omission or provide a Rationale for it. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 236 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 224) [DT-XCU-194] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: it is out of scope to delete and these did not make the legacy list when discussed last year _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 931 Line: 35701 Section: tabs Problem: These reference such ancient interfaces, and now have to be so obscurely described (particularly -a, -a2, -p, -s and -u), and tabs is on the border of obsolete itself anyway (as uploading to mainframes becomes a thing of the past), that at the very least the added options should be marked legacy. Probably they should be deleted. See 35751. Action: Delete, or mark legacy. Consider marking the whole command legacy. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 237 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 225) [DT-XCU-195] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Since this is UN marked, agree that we should remove lines 35722-35726 change references to +m in lines 35693-35695 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 932 Line: 35722 Section: tabs Problem: Based on the rationale at 35800, delete the +m option. Action: Delete +m. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 238 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 13) {pasc-1003.2-168-p5} Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:23:34 GMT _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 943 Line: 36097 Section: tee Problem: PASC Interpretation 1003.2-168 identified a problem with the tee command. The notes to the editor stated: The tee command : page 447 l 10116, change to "if the -a option is not specified, output files are written to (see 2.9.1.4)". p 448 l 10121 change to "append the output to the files." Action: Change P943, L36097 to "If the -a option is not specified, output files shall be written (see Section 1.7.1.4 on page 11).". Delete " rather than overwriting them" from P943, L36102. [Ed note:add to CH IEEE PASC Interpretation 1003.2-1992 #168 is applied] _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 239 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 226) [DT-XCU-196] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 946 Line: 36181 Section: test Problem: As specified at line 431, the inner set of brackets should be Bold Fixed Width. Action: Fix font. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 240 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 227) [DT-XCU-197] 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: 948 Line: 36261 Section: test Problem: What is the ISO semantics? The XSI semantics have erased the "unspecified" case for ISO case. Action: Restore original .2 text, and add "For XSI systems...". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 241 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 228) [DT-XCU-198] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: we do not shade rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 950 Line: 36342 Section: test Problem: "marked extensions" is at best confusing. If this was shaded and marked XSI (which I *think* it should be) then it might be clearer that it's the XSI extensions that are being discussed. Action: 1) Fix this (shade as noted above). 2) Mark and shade all XSI specific rationale so that actually makes sense in the context of a combined document. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 242 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 229) [DT-XCU-199] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 36422-36477 inclusive _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 952 Line: 36422 Section: test Problem: Yes? They're now an XSI extension. Given this rationale, maybe the XSI extensions should be removed. Action: Remove extensions or fix rationale (or mark Legacy). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 243 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 230) [DT-XCU-200] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 36471 Add a reviewers note: XCUd3 ERN 243 asked whether -L and -S should be added to the test utility? It looks as if they should. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 953 Line: 36471 Section: test Problem: Multiple EMB problems here: 1) -h now IS specified. 2) Is there a reason that -L isn't now specified? 3) -S should be specified. (and implicitly... are there more? Streams comes to mind immediately.) Action: Consider -L raw symlink. Add -S (for socket). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 244 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 231) [DT-XCU-201] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 37109-37112 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 970 Line: 37109 Section: tr Problem: "Issue 3?" Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 245 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 232) [DT-XCU-202] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: [we wasted too much time trying to decipher this comment...] The page number refers to true and the line number is in tr, there is no .2-1990 standard, the tsort utility is marked as XSI, tsort did not get elected to new legacy _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 973 Line: 37109 Section: tsort Problem: Lost .2 rationale. Action: Restore .2-1990 863/4570. This implies that tsort should be made Legacy. (The .2 rationale for omitting a function still is appropriate even if TOG chooses to restore it in its profile.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 246 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 233) [DT-XCU-203] 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: 977 Line: 37375 Section: tty Problem: -s has been dropped. Action: Delete "the -s option is not specified and". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 247 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 235) [DT-XCU-205] 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 to delete the -f No specific wording given for rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 981 Line: 37841 Section: ulimit Problem: The semantics of -f are at best "odd". Action: Add explanatory rationale (if someone can actually explain this; else delete -f). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 248 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 234) [DT-XCU-204] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: see scope update, and decisions made in Montreal _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 984 Line: 37586 Section: umask Problem: Octal modes were obsolescent (everywhere in .2). Now they're creeping back. Restore the original "obsolescent" (or use "Legacy"). (And fix it everywhere else, too!) Restore also 1003.2-1992: 467/10715, 467/10721. Action: Restore original .2 wording. (Or make Legacy.) _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 249 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 236) [DT-XCU-206] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change "unalias*" to "unalias *" (add space). _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 989 Line: 37769 Section: unalias Problem: "unalias*" appears wrong: Action: 1) "unalias *" (add space). 2) Should be (in all instances) CW. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 250 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 237) [DT-XCU-207] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: add at line 38385: The protocol for transfer of files is unspecified by this standard. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1008 Line: 38378 Section: uucp Problem: No protocol for transfer is referenced or specified. I believe that this leaves 3 choices: 1) Specify a protocol. 2) Add text: The protocol for transfer of files is unspecified by this standard. Applications cannot assume that actual transfer of files will occur unless interoperability of the implementations has been assured by some other means. 3) Delete uucp. Action: Choose one. My preference remains with #3, as the reasons for retaining this interface (particularly in the face of a lack of a protocol specification) are very weak. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 251 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 238) [DT-XCU-208] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this is rationale and no specific changes are put forward _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1013 Line: 38597 Section: uudecode Problem: /dev/stdout has not existed on any system I've ever used (as a real object, rather than a magic cookie). Granted I've not used every system, but I believe that this is a rather blithe statement. Action: I'd really rather see the whole idea deleted, but at the very least emphasize the "magic cookie" aspect more, and the "real implementation" less. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 252 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 239) [DT-XCU-209] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_253 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1016 Line: 38660 Section: uuencode Problem: serious typo. No % characters in format. Action: "base64ss" -> "base64%s%s". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 253 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 286) [DWC-17] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1016 Line: 38660 Section: uuencode Problem: (uuencode: stdout) Some characters have been dropped from the base64 ouput format string that completely change the meaning of the output. Action: Change: "begin-base64ss\n", , decode_pathname on P1016, L38660 to: "begin-base64 %s %s\n", , decode_pathname with the spaces in the format string replaced by the delta characters indicating exactly one character (rather than arbitrary characters). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 254 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 240) [DT-XCU-210] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change "cannot be used" on P1023, L38905 to "shall not be accepted. Any use of these redirection operators shall cause this utility to write an error message describing the problem and exit with a non-zero exit status". [ The uux utility captures file redirection operations rather than passing them to a remote shell. Since uux may need to copy files to the system where command will actually be executed, uux only supports a subset of the redirections supported by shells. The uux utility will detect, reject, and issue a diagnostic if the invoked with attempts to use >>, <<, >|, and >&. The uux utility uses ! to indicate access to a file or command on a remote or the local system as described in the description section above the objected to text on P1023, L38897-38899, the operands section on P1024, L38943-38947, and as shown in the examples on P1025, L39005 and L39009. Given this, we believe "cannot" on P1023, L38906 is perfectly clear English usage.] _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1023 Line: 38905 Section: uux Problem: "cannot" Action: -> "shall not" (and on 38906). Or is this a "without prior agreement" limitation (in that not all remote shells can be expected to have these, but some can)? If so, it should be rephrased to "it is unspecified if... can be used". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 255 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 241) [DT-XCU-211] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Replace with: If exactly one file operand appears, and it is "-", the standard.... [the submitter is reminded that rdvk should standalone or at least reference themselves using some unique identifier] _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1027 Line: 39060 Section: val Problem: "single instance file". See rmdel. Action: As for rmdel. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 256 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 242) [DT-XCU-212] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: wording as per 2b _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1032 Line: 39276 Section: vi Problem: Inconsistent phrasing. Here it's "preceded and followed", on line 39282 it's "delimited on both ends". Action: Pick one and put both places. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 257 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 287) [DWC-18] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1034 Line: 39322-39323 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) The text here uses "exclamation point", the this character is described elsewhere in this document set (including in the XBD description of characters in the POSIX locale) as "exclamation mark". Action: Change "exclamation point" on P1034, L39322-39323 to "exclamation mark". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 258 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 243) [DT-XCU-213] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: editors have markup _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1034 Line: 39325 Section: vi Problem: Quoting on this line is a mess. Fix to match .2. Action: Fix to match .2. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 259 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 244) [DT-XCU-214] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1035 Line: 39404 Section: vi Problem: This is a mess. The "-" is not an option flag, but the subtraction operator here. And what is "W". Also 39438 Action: Restore .2b text as it currently is. (For those who are curious, "W" is the multiply operator that looks like "x".) Editor, make sure all such are restored. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 260 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 288) [DWC-19] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1035,1036,1074 Line: 39404,39438,40892,40894 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) P1003.2b draft 13.1, P224, L3360 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 P1035, L39404 to the symbol that was used in P1003.2b draft 13.1 or to "*". Make the same change on P1036, L39438. Make the same change on P1074, L40892. Make the same change on P1074, L40894. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 261 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 289) [DWC-20] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1037 Line: 39472 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) The "count" on this line should be in italics like it was in P1003.2b draft 13.1, P226, L3436. The mathematical expression "count - 1" also looks strange without the space between the "-" and the "1". Action: Put "count" in italic font on P1037, L39472. Change "-1" on P1037, L39472 to "- 1". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 262 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 290) [DWC-21] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1037 Line: 39475 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) Action: Change "-1" on P1037, L39472 to "- 1". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 263 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 245) [DT-XCU-215] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1041 Line: 39601 Section: vi Problem: "forwards" is grammatically incorrect. Action: Use "forward". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 264 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 246) [DT-XCU-216] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The LISP language is also referenced in the descriptions of the ctags and ex utilities. Accept as marked below (Note that these changes will leave the "lisp" macro in lower-case, put all references to the LISP language in all upper-case (matching the ANSI Standard), and remove all places where I found "Lisp" in mixed case.): Add new document to the list of Informative References in the Referenced Documents section of XBD6 draft 3 following Pxxiv, L816: ANS X3.226-1994 Programming Language Common LISP. Change "Lisp" on P388, L14691 to "LISP". (Do not change "lisp" on that line.) Change "Lisp" on P388, L14692 to "LISP". Change "lisp" on P427, L16258 to "LISP". Change the second "lisp" on P1045, L39745 to "LISP" (not in italics). (Do not change the first "lisp" on that line.) Change the second "lisp" on P1045, L39751 to "LISP" (not in italics). (Do not change the first "lisp" on that line.) Change "Lisp" on P1083, L41245 to "The lisp". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1045 Line: 39745 Section: vi Problem: "lisp s-expression" is not defined here or by reference. Action: Choose 1. 1) Add a normative reference to LISP. (A bit much for this case!) 2) Check IEEE dictionary and see if it's there (I don't have one). 3) Define explicitly as some form of "balanced parentheses" (which probably takes some vi codereading to find out that that really means). I prefer #3 as it's the clearest. The term "lisp s-expression could be retained as explanatory text in a sentence such as... "A lisp s-expression is defined by vi to mean...". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 265 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 291) [DWC-22] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1045,1046 Line: 39769,39779 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) While the ex utility talks about a "motion character", the vi utility talks about a "motion command". The description of the "|" command in vi, however, uses "motion character". Action: Change "motion character" on P1045, L39769 to "motion command". Change "motion character" on P1045, L39779 to "motion command". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 266 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 247) [DT-XCU-217] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Reject: Out of scope. If the submitter wanted to maintain the unspecified status of the . command with respect to the u command, he should have objected to the changes when they were made in P1003.2b as a member of that ballot group. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1046 Line: 39790 Section: vi Problem: At least two versions of vi give . a meaning after a u(ndo) command, and give it different meanings. Action: Choose one: 1) Make the use of . after u unspecified. 2) Give it a definition. If the latter, I prefer some form of "multiple undo" (where repeated . commands undo more things). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 267 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 292) [DWC-23] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1054 Line: 40113 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) Typo. Action: Change "if count if" on P1054, L40113 to "if count is". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 268 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 248) [DT-XCU-218] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1055 Line: 40117 Section: vi Problem: The word "count" should be italicized. Action: Italicize. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 269 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 249) [DT-XCU-219] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the submitter is probably missing the fact that the / and ? commands can take one or more regular expressions, followed by an address offset or a vi z command. The n and N commands do not repeat those steps, only the search for a match for the last RE. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1057 Line: 40185 Section: vi Problem: The descriptions for n and N are not nearly as parallel as they could and should be. They also seem to be unnecessarily complex, but maybe I'm missing something. Action: Try n Repeat the last / or ? command (using the same search text). N Repeat the last / or ? command entered, using the same search text, but search in the opposite direction from that command. (Does not change the search direction permanently.) (For both, add the bit about the ! command). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 270 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 250) [DT-XCU-220] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This text comes straight from P1003.2b (2b draft 13.1 P236, L4307-4310. Add reviewers note after P1059, L40282 (or 40283) including the problem statement and noting that something should be done here when P1003.2b is approved. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1059 Line: 40284 Section: vi Problem: The description of R is not correct: R is NOT the same as the i command, which is what the text describes. Action: Replace with: Enter replace mode. Text is read as if in insert mode, but each character that would be added to the file instead replaces the next character on the current line. If the end of the current line is reached, characters are inserted (the replacement shall not continue onto the next line). _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 271 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 293) [DWC-24] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1068,1070 Line: 40618,40689,40690 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) P1003.2b draft 13.1 P261, L4690 uses " characters" while this draft uses "<> characters". I believe P1003.2b was correct. Action: Change "<>" on P1068, L40618 to "". Change "<>" on P1070, L40689 to "". Change "<>" on P1070, L40690 to "". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 272 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 251) [DT-XCU-221] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_273 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1069 Line: 40648 Section: vi Problem: Missing text. Action: Change "-J or the character" to "-J or the newline character". _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 273 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 294) [DWC-25] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: accept the second part (for the first we should be consistent in our use) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1069 Line: 40648 Section: vi Problem: (vi: extended description) P1003.2b draft 13.1, P262, L4721-4722 says "other than or , as a literal character" where this draft says "other than -J or the character, as a literal character". I don't mind changing to -J as long as it is used consistently (although I prefer the POSIX.2b form), but changing "" to "the character" is not acceptable. Action: Globally change character specifications of the form "-x" to "" for all values of x (as in P1003.2b). Change "the character" on P1069, L40648 to "". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 274 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 252) [DT-XCU-222] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This text comes straight from P1003.2b (2b draft 13.1 P249, L4754-4760. Add reviewers note after P1069, L40681 (or 40683) including the problem statement and indicating that something should be done here when P1003.2b is approved. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1069 Line: 40682 Section: vi Problem: The character ESC is not an interrupt character, so why is point 1 here? (The semantics are not parallel enough to justify it as part of ESC, although they are sometimes similar.) Action: Give interrupt its own entry, and get rid of item one and thus the numbered list. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 275 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 253) [DT-XCU-223] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1070 Line: 40689 Section: vi Problem: Why is it written as <>. (That's not European quotes, that's double < and >.) Action: Should be "". _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 276 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 254) [DT-XCU-224] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1072 Line: 40779 Section: vi Problem: End of sentence. Should have double space after the period. Action: Recode so the ROFF processor recognizes that it's a sentence. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 277 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 255) [DT-XCU-225] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The use of physical and logical here is consistent with its use throughout the normative and rationale text for vi (physical and logical lines are not mentioned in ex). A physical line is a line in the buffer being edited [zero or more non- characters followed by a character]. A logical line is however many screen lines are needed to display the physical line. Add new paragraph after P1034, L19346: In the remainder of the description of the vi utility, the term "physical line" refers a line in the edit buffer and the term "logical line" refers to the line or lines on the display screen used to display a physical line. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1072 Line: 40811 Section: vi Problem: This discussion uses the terms "physical" and "logical" backwards to the way I would use them. To me "physical" is the actual representation on the screen, logical is "the way it should be ideally" (that is, in the buffer). Action: We can argue about who's right, but to remove the ambiguity and to make this text much clearer, use "display lines" to refer to what's on the screen, and "buffer lines" to refer to what's in memory (the ideal world). (As written, replace "logical" with "screen" and "physical" with "buffer", and delete the existing "or screen" on 40811/2. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 278 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 257) [DT-XCU-227] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: @* appeared in one or two drafts of P1003 and was dropped to raise acceptance. The rationale wasn't cleaned up when it was removed. Take option 1. Delete P1077, L41022-41024. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1077 Line: 41022 Section: vi Problem: I don't see normative text backing up this assertion about @*. Certainly not in the Execute section, not even by implication that "all ex stuff works". (It may be elsewhere.) Action: Choose one: 1) Delete this. 2) Change the normative text to support it. 3) Provide a reference to the normative text that supports it. If it were wholly my choice, I'd choose #1. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 279 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 295) [DWC-26] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1079 Line: 41097 Section: vi Problem: (vi: rationale) Typo. It looks like there was a macro expansion problem. Action: Change "A" (where is the Greek zeta character) on P1079, L41097 to "IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 280 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 258) [DT-XCU-228] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1079 Line: 41097 Section: vi Problem: Some (Greek?) character... Obviously some sort of macro, but? Action: Fix. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 281 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 259) [DT-XCU-229] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: No text was lost from POSIX.2, but a capitalization error makes this hard to follow. Change "use The" on P1087, L41383 to "use the". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1086 Line: 41382 Section: wait Problem: I think the text "Historical implementations use" represents some amount of lost text. Action: Restore the rest or delete this. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 282 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 260) [DT-XCU-230] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: "(see get on page 510)" is not "a page number only". The draft is consistent (and the macro will be changed if ISO doesn't accept the current format). also page nnn will appear as (page nnn) in the next draft _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1091 Line: 41528 Section: what Problem: This is an illegal (page number only) reference (at least there's no real section number). (Since get is alphabetized there's little benefit in a page number, anyway.) Action: Fix (according to IEEE/ISO rules). _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 283 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 261) [DT-XCU-231] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: -E is now brought into the base standard by 2b alignment. Remove the shading at 41900 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1101 Line: 41868 Section: xargs Problem: The text at 41900 says that -E is XSI, but it's not shaded either here or at 41877 Action: Shade (or unshade and remove text as 41900 if it's not XSI.) _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 284 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 262) [DT-XCU-232] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: use the right font _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1101 Line: 41883 Section: xargs Problem: More munged " strings. (' )' -> (") (and get the fonts right.) Action: Fix _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 285 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 263) [DT-XCU-233] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1101 Line: 41910 Section: xargs Problem: What -i option? Delete the reference to it. Similarly on 41917 for -l. Action: Delete reference to undefined options. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 286 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 296) [DWC-27] Mon, 1 May 2000 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: A "?" in an output format specification is not present in XCU6 that appeared in XCU5. Accept. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1103 Line: 41992 Section: xargs Problem: (xargs: stderr) The format on this line has changed from what is specified in XCU5. I haven't found any reason in the OGTGbase minutes for this change. Action: Change: "..." on P1103, L41992 to: "?..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 287 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 264) [DT-XCU-234] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete para at 42068 since used in App Usage elsewheere and should be consistent _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1104 Line: 42028 Section: xargs Problem: EMB Duplicates text at 42068. Action: Delete here. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 288 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 266) [DT-XCU-236] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move example 1 to be the last example, and add lead in text "On XSI-conformant systems..." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1105 Line: 42039 Section: xargs Problem: The first example is XSI only; this would be particularly misleading to the ISO reader. Action: Shade. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 289 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 265) [DT-XCU-235] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The text is left over from an early P1003.2 draft that dropped the -n option. Since the option has been restored, delete this rationale. Delete P1105, L42065-42067. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1105 Line: 42065 Section: xargs Problem: What's this paragraph driving at... it's not clear to me why it's here (what's the consequence of the observation) Also, the business about "sapping resources" seems odd. Action: Clarify or delete as pointless. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 290 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 267) [DT-XCU-237] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1106 Line: 42123 Section: xargs Problem: Nonsense... it already does. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 291 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 269) [DT-XCU-239] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change "application ensure" on P1110, L42260 to "application shall ensure". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1110 Line: 42260 Section: yacc Problem: Missing "shall" ("application ensure" is just wrong). Preferably, restore .2 language of a simple shall, because of prior discussion of "application shall". Action: Restore .2 language. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 292 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 268) [DT-XCU-238] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Page and line given to the aardvark don't match. If there were a problem, this would be editorial; not an objection. The reviewers don't see anything inconsistent in usage of fonts in this draft on P1112 or on P1111, L42298. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1112 Line: 42298 Section: yacc Problem: Use CW font for all the literal text, rather than the ad-hoc mixture of Roman and bold used here. See the original .2; it's far more readable. Action: Fix fonts. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 293 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 270) [DT-XCU-240] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: POSIX.2 is self-inconsistent between P708, L826 and P734, L971. An interp request has been filed. Add editor's note around XCU6 P1115, L42464: An interpretation has been filed against 1003.2 and is likely to change "}%" to "%}" Delete P1115, L42449-42452. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1115 Line: 42451 Section: yacc Problem: ERN 375 is correct. Look at 42340 (826 in .2-1992) where it's %}. It would be difficult (albeit not impossible) to lex it this way, as well. Action: Make change. Note that the "stronger" normative text is where lexical token is defined, vs. this comment here. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 294 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 271) [DT-XCU-241] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1117 Line: 42567 Section: yacc Problem: "The historical" automatically makes this rationale. Move it. (This multibyte tapdance is not in the original .2. Although useful, it isn't normative.) Action: Delete from "(Multi-byte" to the end of the paragraph and move to rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTION Enhancement Request Number 295 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 272) [DT-XCU-242] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Referenced XBD comment is XBD ERN #13. Change "DeRemer, Frank, and Pennello" on P1121, L42745 to "DeRemer and Pennello". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1121 Line: 42745 Section: yacc Problem: "Frank" is not an author, it's Frank DeRemer's first name. Action: Correct reference in IEEE style. Also, get rid of the "A" in "Article" in several places in this paragraph. See more about this in my XBD comments. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 296 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 273) [DT-XCU-243] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: We believe ISO still requires this, and our scope says it will be here. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1127 Line: 42911 Section: 5 Problem: If this is no longer required by ISO, drop it. If it is, consider moving it to XBD as a single chapter that supports all three parts. Action: Drop, if possible. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 297 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 256) [DT-XCU-226] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_260 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 10794 Line: 40892,40894 Section: . Problem: More W and - problems. Action: See page 804 about -W. _____________________________________________________________________________ EDITORIAL Enhancement Request Number 298 donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XCUd3 (rdvk# 205) [DT-XCU-175] Mon, 1 May 2000 11:55:26 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Page is wrong in aardvark (33837 s/b 884). Change "n" (in italic font) on P884, L33837 to "'n'" in the font used to display C language character constants. Make same change on P884, L33846. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 33837 Line: 33837 Section: sed Problem: In this case it's a literal n (as in \n for newline). Also applies to 33846 Action: Use CW.