Document Number: AUSTIN/63r1
Title: XRATd4 Aardvark Change Request Report
Revision Date: 2000-11-23
Source: Andrew Josey, Chair
Action: for review
This report contains the dispositions of the aardvark comments
submitted against the XRAT Draft 4.
Aardvark Summary Table (XRATd4)
______________________
ERN 1 Reject
ERN 2 Reject
ERN 3 Accept as marked
ERN 4 Accept as marked
ERN 5 Accept as marked
ERN 6 Accept as marked
ERN 7 Duplicate of 6
ERN 8 Accept
ERN 9 Accept
ERN 10 Accept
ERN 11 Accept
ERN 12 Accept as marked
ERN 13 Accept
ERN 14 Duplicate of 13
ERN 15 Duplicate of XBD112
ERN 16 Accept
ERN 17 Accept
ERN 18 Accept
ERN 19 Accept
ERN 20 Reject
ERN 21 Accept as marked
ERN 22 Accept as marked
ERN 23 Accept as marked
ERN 24 Accept
ERN 25 Accept
ERN 26 Accept as marked
ERN 27 Accept
ERN 28 Accept
ERN 29 Accept
ERN 30 Accept
ERN 31 Accept
ERN 32 Accept
ERN 33 Accept
ERN 34 Accept
ERN 35 Accept
ERN 36 Accept as marked
ERN 37 OPEN
ERN 38 Accept
ERN 39 Accept as marked
ERN 40 Accept
ERN 41 Accept
ERN 42 Accept
ERN 43 Accept
ERN 44 Accept
ERN 45 Accept as marked
ERN 46 Accept
ERN 47 Accept
ERN 48 Accept as marked
ERN 49 Reject
ERN 50 Reject
ERN 51 Accept
ERN 52 Accept as marked
ERN 53 Accept as marked
ERN 54 Accept as marked
ERN 55 Accept as marked
ERN 56 Accept
ERN 57 Accept
ERN 58 Accept
ERN 59 Accept
ERN 60 Accept
ERN 61 Accept
ERN 62 Accept
ERN 63 Accept
ERN 64 Accept
ERN 65 Duplicate of 64
ERN 66 Accept
ERN 67 Accept
ERN 68 Accept
_______________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 1
roysterc@ncr.disa.mil Bug in XRATd4 entire Document (rdvk# 55)
{App usage section(s)/entire document} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 03:31:13 +0100 (BST)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Reject:This change would require this document set to be updated every
time a new profile is approved. It is therefore inappropriate
to make this change.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: entire
Problem:
Need to identify all of the different types
of Feature Groups b4 approving this draft.
Also, each API/Function should be labeled to indicated if it is part
of an existing POSIX profile like 1003.13:1998. This will inform the
implementor to maybe use this API by profile name (1003.13:1998 PSE54
instead of standard reference number e.g., 1003.1:xxxx.
Action:
In the Front section of the document. List all the types of feature
groups with their meanings. Also, list if a particular API/function is
part of an existing profile like 1003.13:1998 etc. The application usage
section should indicate if a function/API is listed in 1003.13:1998.
If an API is not noted, this would be helpful to the implementor/user
of the spec.
_____________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 2
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 page headers cut off (rdvk# 56)
{JMG-10} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:11:35 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Reject, this is believed to be user error. An email was sent to the
responder asking to confirm the problem, but no response was received.
No other members of the review group reported the problem.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: page
Problem:
When I print the pdf to US letter (8.5 by 11 inch) paper, the page
headers are all cut off. The entire page image is slid slightly
too high on the page, leaving lots of white space at the bottom,
but shearing the top off.
Action:
Slide page text block down perhaps 6 millimeters.
[Ed recommendation: Reject
appears to be user error]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 3
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 5)
[DST-30] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept that there need be no references here, unless it was later
decided that this is the only location for non-normative references.
Left to the editors final discretion
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: xvii Line: 488 Section: Referenced
Problem:
To answer the question: no. In general, try to minimize the duplication
between the volumes. There are times when convenience dominates, but
particularly in the case of the rationale, it doesn't stand alone anyway,
so why try, kill more trees, and have another place to maintain.
Action:
No refereced docs (unless the ONLY copy of non-normative references
ends up going here).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 4
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 6)
[DST-31] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
To answer the reviewers note, put it with the other non-normative
references.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: xvii Line: 505 Section: Referenced
Problem:
Put it with all the other non-normative references, wherever they go.
Action:
As above.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 5
al.simons@compaq.com BUG in XRATd4 (rdvk# 4)
[Simons-Compaq-2] Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:09:05 -0400
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept as below, expect note that the page number
is 3364.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 56 Line: 2077-2079 Section: A.9.3.5
Problem:
Example is missing some text (or diacritical marks). Reproducing (as best I
can using ASCII) the relevant text on these lines, it says:
defines 'a as a variant of 'a', while another defines it as a letter
following 'z', then the expression "[a-z]"
1) There is a missing close single quote after the first a.
2) the letters 'a' are not distinguished from each other by diacritical marks.
Action:
Add quote and distinguish the letters a, for instance, as follows (I will
use the pair "`a" to indicate an a with some form of diacritical mark).
defines '`a' as a variant of 'a', while another defines it as a letter
following 'z', then the expression "[`a-z]"
Comment:
This is a resubmission of Simons-Compaq-1, which was accidentally submitted
against the draft 3 pagination and line-numbering.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 6
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 19)
[DST-44] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept, this will be fixed up.
This is an editorial typesetting matter, Part pages will be updated
to be consistent with the front page.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3309 Line: 4 Section: A
Problem:
This line seems useless in this context (and if it is to be there,
what about the other sponsors?)
Action:
Delete (and also at l2614).
_____________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 7
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 63)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886157.24196_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_6_ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
(accept)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3309 Line: 4 Section: A
Problem:
Only the "Open Group" is listed as author on this and other part
title-pages.
Action:
Should the IEEE Standard Association also be listed?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 8
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 7)
[DST-32] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3311 Line: 25 Section: A.1.1
Problem:
Add a comment...
Action:
New members of the Legacy group have been added reflecting the advance
in understanding of what is required.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 9
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 8)
[DST-33] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3314 Line: 162 Section: A.1.4
Problem:
Add additional clarifier.
Action:
Add at end of paragraph:
In particular, implementation-defined is used where it is believed that
certain classes of application will need to know such details to determine
if the application can be successfully ported to the implementation.
Such applications are not always strictly portable, but nevertheless are
common and useful; often the requirements met by the application cannot
be met without dealing with the issues implied by "implementation-defined".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 10
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 9)
[DST-34] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3315 Line: 180 Section: A.1.5
Problem:
Grammar.
Action:
"some." -> "some others." (Otherwise this sentence seems oddly circular.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 11
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 10)
[DST-35] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3315 Line: 194 Section: A.1.5.1
Problem:
I beieve we got rid of PI in the main body (I sure hope it stays away).
Action:
Delete.
[Ed recommendation:Accept]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 12
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 12)
[DST-37] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept , the missing words are:
"Command is defined as ``a directive to a shell"
insert these before "to perform a specific task.''"
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3322 Line: 400 Section: A.3
Problem:
Non-sentences on this line.
Action:
Find and restore original text. It looks as if a sentence got lost
from whatever source document this came from. (.2-1992 P770, L653?)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 13
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 11)
[DST-36] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3322 Line: 430 Section: A.3
Problem:
A 1-bit character set would be interesting.
Action:
"1-bit" -> "1-byte" or "8-bit" (probably 1-byte).
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 14
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 65)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885904.24157_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_13_ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
(accept)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3322 Line: 430 Section: A.3
Problem:
Incorrect characterisation of ASCII as a "1-bit character set".
Action:
Change "1-bit" to "1-byte".
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 15
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 2.10.6 (defn of Epoch) (rdvk# 60)
{JMG-6} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:33:44 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_XBD112 Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
(change being made to rationale as per XBD 112)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3324 Line: 490 Section: 2.10.6
Problem:
The following definition of the Epoch isn't quite right. POSIX Time
is not identical to UTC, although these two timescales both use the
SI second, and coincided once, at 0h 0m 0s UTC 1 January 1970 AD.
Since then, the timescales have diverged as UTC followed the leap
seconds while POSIX Time did not, ignoring those leap seconds.
POSIX Time is actually semantically equivalent to TAI, differing by
a constant number of whole seconds, although this is nowhere stated
in POSIX documents.
Epoch
Historically, the origin of UNIX system time was referred to as
00:00:00 GMT, January 1, 1970. Greenwich Mean Time is actually
not a term acknowledged by the international standards community;
therefore, this term, Epoch, is used to abbreviate the reference to
the actual standard, Coordinated Universal Time.
Was it the intent to change the tradtional definition of POSIX Time?
That is the effect of the above definition, copied directly from
draft 4. Nor is the history quite right. GMT used to be a
recognised term, but it was replaced by UTC.
It would also be useful to point people to the rest of the story,
which appears under Seconds since the Epoch.
Action:
Change to read:
Epoch
Historically, the origin of UNIX system time was referred to as
"00:00:00 GMT, January 1, 1970". Greenwich Mean Time is no longer
a term acknowledged by the international standards community;
having been replaced by Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
Therefore, the POSIX term "Epoch" is now defined as the equivalent
"00:00:00 UTC 1 January 1970 AD".
See also "Seconds since the Epoch".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 16
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 13)
[DST-38] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3326 Line: 561 Section: A.3
Problem:
"is most common" is no longer true. Posix (OK, ksh) seems to dominate
now.
Action:
->"was most common when the standard was originally developed".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 17
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 14)
[DST-39] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3330 Line: 747 Section: A3
Problem:
"byte" is a unit of storage.
Action:
"byte at a time" -> "character at a time".
(We can get into long involved definitions of "parse" w.r.t. multibyte
characters, and yes, getc operates on bytes, but the shells are defined
in terms of (abstract) characters, not the bytes which comprise them.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 18
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 43)
[DWC-744] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3330 Line: 748 Section: A.3
Problem:
(base definitions rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " characters" on P3330, L748 to "s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 19
Jon.Hitchcock@uniplex.co.uk Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 3)
{jjh1} Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:36:37 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3332-3333,3347 Line: 841-876,1463 Section: Seconds
Problem:
The rationale for Seconds Since the Epoch is in the wrong place. It
should be in section A.4, to correspond with XBDd4.
Action:
Delete the heading at line 841.
Move lines 842-876 so that they replace line 1463.
[Ed recommendation: Accept]
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 20
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 Seconds since Epoch (rdvk# 59)
{JMG-7} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:45:59 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
The rationale is not missing, it is all present, although much is moved
from the original .1 between the discussion of "Epoch" and
"Seconds since the Epoch" - the latter being a new general concept
in this revision.
The formula has been fixed. The note added to the text in 4.12 obviates
the need for additional rationale here.
Rewording of additional rationale here is being undertaken
related to XBD ERN 112.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3332 Line: 841 Section: Seconds
Problem:
Much of the original rationale for POSIX time has become lost and/or
mangled, rendering the rationale here opaque, probably leading to some
of the time-related discussions on the austin group reflector. This
rationale appeared under "Epoch" in POSIX.1, and was moved to
"Seconds since the Epoch" here. The move makes sense, but the loss
of information does not.
Action:
Incorporate the missing text from 9945-1:1996 page 377 "Epoch" and
page 385 "Seconds since the Epoch".
Explain exactly what is wrong with the formula for handling leap
centuries, if the problem is not yet fixed. If it is fixed, describe
what was done; this was a longstanding albeit then remote problem
in POSIX.
I offer to work with the editor on the details offline; it's too
much to lay out here.
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 21
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 14 leap seconds (rdvk# 58)
{JMG-8} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:55:40 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept as marked, take the new wording for 842-844 , work in with
other changes being made to this text, left to editors discretion
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3332 Line: 842-844 Section: 14
Problem:
It isn't made clear that the 14 seconds is merely the current offset
between POSIX Time and UTC; this offset will grow on average by one
second every 18 months.
Action:
Change to read:
Coordinated Universal Time includes leap seconds. However, in
POSIX Time, leap seconds are ignored to provide an easy and
compatible method of computing time differences.
As of September 2000, 14 leap seconds had been added to UTC since
the Epoch, 1 January 1970. Historically, one leap second is added
every 18 months, so this offset can be expected to grow steadily
with time.
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 22
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 rollover in 2038 (rdvk# 57)
{JMG-9} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:04:47 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Change "as a 32-bit integer" to "as a signed 32-bit integer" .
Change "POSIX.1 does not Specify the data size for time_t"
to
"The data size for time_t is as per the ISO C definition which
is implementation-defined."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3333 Line: 874 Section: rollover
Problem:
The statement "Implementations that implement time_t as a 32-bit
integer will overflow in 2038" isn't quite right. This is true only
if those implementations use signed arithmetic. If unsigned
arithmetic is used, the added bit gets us to 2106, assuming that the
erroneous leap century computation doesn't get us first.
The statement "POSIX.1 does not Specify the data size for time_t"
raises the obvious question: Who does, then? ISO C?
Action:
Clarify wording. Answer obvious question.
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 23
a.gruenbacher@computer.org Bug in XRATd4 Defitions / Symbolic Link (rdvk# 1)
{-} Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:43:24 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Change line 1063 p 3337
"In IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, the ls utility never follows
symbolic links unless one of the -H or -L options is specified."
to
In IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, unless one of the -H or -L options is
specified, the ls utility only follows symbolic links to directories
that are given as operands.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3337 Line: 1060 Section: Defitions
Problem:
Minor inconsistency between the description of ls
in XCU and XRAT. In XRAT it says,
"In IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, the ls utility never follows
symbolic links unless one of the -H or -L options is specified."
while in XCU it is specified that ls does that:
----------------------
$ mkdir d
$ touch d/f
$ ln -s d l
$ ls l
f
----------------------
Action:
Replace the sentence with:
"In IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, unless one of the -H or -L options is
specified, the ls utility only follows symbolic links to directories
that are given as operands."
Alternatively, remove the sentence, or change the definition of ls
accordingly (in my personal order of preference).
_____________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 24
ajosey@opengroup.org Bug in XRATd4 A.3 (rdvk# 2)
{tog.aug25.1} Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:14:53 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3338 Line: 1094-1096 Section: A.3
Problem:
The POSIX semantics for symlinks for the chmod utility do
not apply, these refer to an earlier draft proposal not adopted.
(this was an error in imported rationale from 2b)
Action:
Clear the POSIX column for the chmod utility
[Ed recommendation: Accept]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 25
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 2 (rdvk# 34)
[DST-144] Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:36:04 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3338 Line: 1123 Section: A.3
Problem:
I believe it has now been determined that the result of raise
and kill-self are considered synchronous.
Action:
Per that resolution, add: Any signal sent via the raise() call
or a kill() call targeting the current process is also considered
synchronous.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 26
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 15)
[DST-40] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept, take the Ed recommendation below.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3339 Line: 1127 Section: A.3
Problem:
This reference points to nowhere, as far as I can find. However,
it should refer to a very important discussion. (Although generally
better understood now than then, many still confuse the two.)
Action:
Restore that discussion (probably in the beginning of XRAT, but I could
see it in the introduction to XBD.) This is the material on pages
ix through xiii of .1-1990 (and presumably -1996).
[Ed recommendation:
Add this text to the common preface for Issue 6:
(troff file xolit:~ajosey/D4+/rati.r)
Background
The developers of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x represent a cross-
section of hardware manufacturers, vendors of operating
systems and other software development tools, software
designers, consultants, academics, authors, applications
programmers, and others.
Conceptually, IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x describes a set of
fundamental services needed for the efficient construction
of application programs. Access to these services has been
provided by defining an interface, using the C programming
language, a command interpreter and common utility programs
that establish standard semantics and syntax. Since this
interface enables application writers to write portable
applications--it was developed with that goal in mind--it
has been designated POSIX,(footnote 1) an acronym for Portable
Operating System Interface.
Although originated to refer to the original IEEE Std
1003.1-1988, the name POSIX more correctly refers to a
family of related standards: IEEE 1003.n and the parts of
International Standard ISO/IEC 9945. In earlier editions of
the IEEE standard, the term POSIX was used as a synonym for
IEEE Std 1003.1-1988. A preferred term, POSIX.1, emerged.
This maintained the advantages of readability of the symbol
``POSIX'' without being ambiguous with the POSIX family of
standards.
Audience
The intended audience for ISO/IEC 9945 is all persons
concerned with an industry-wide standard operating system
based on the UNIX system. This includes at least four
groups of people:
__________
1. The name POSIX was suggested by Richard Stallman. It is
expected to be pronounced pahz-icks, as in positive, not
poh-six, or other variations. The pronunciation has
been published in an attempt to promulgate a
standardized way of referring to a standard operating
system interface.
__________
1. Persons buying hardware and software systems;
2. Persons managing companies that are deciding on future
corporate computing directions;
3. Persons implementing operating systems, and especially
4. Persons developing applications where portability is
an objective.
Purpose
Several principles guided the development of this :
Application Oriented
The basic goal was to promote portability of
application programs across UNIX system
environments by developing a clear, consistent, and
unambiguous standard for the interface
specification of a portable operating system based
on the UNIX system documentation.
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x codifies the common, existing
definition of the UNIX system. There was no
attempt to define a new system interface.
Interface, Not Implementation
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x defines an interface, not an
implementation. No distinction is made between
library functions and system calls: both are
referred to as functions. No details of the
implementation of any function are given (although
historical practice is sometimes indicated in the
RATIONALE. Symbolic names are given for constants
(such as signals and error numbers) rather than
numbers.
Source, Not Object, Portability
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x has been written so that a
program written and translated for execution on one
conforming implementation may also be translated
for execution on another conforming implementation.
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x does not guarantee that
executable (object or binary) code will execute
under a different conforming implementation than
that for which it was translated, even if the
underlying hardware is identical.
The C Language
The system interfaces and header definitions are
written in terms of the standard C language as
specified in the ISO C standard.
No Super-User, No System Administration
There was no intention to specify all aspects of an
operating system. System administration facilities
and functions are excluded from
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, and functions usable only by
the super-user have not been included. Still, an
implementation of the standard interface may also
implement features not in this
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x. IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x is
also not concerned with hardware constraints or
system maintenance.
Minimal Interface, Minimally Defined
In keeping with the historical design principles of
the UNIX system, IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x is as
minimal as possible. For example, it usually
specifies only one set of functions to implement a
capability. Exceptions were made in some cases
where long tradition and many existing applications
included certain functions, such as creat().
Broadly Implementable
The developers of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x endeavored
to make all specified functions implementable
across a wide range of existing and potential
systems, including:
1. All of the current major systems that are
ultimately derived from the original UNIX
system code (Version 7 or later)
2. Compatible systems that are not derived from
the original UNIX system code
3. Emulations hosted on entirely different
operating systems
4. Networked systems
5. Distributed systems
6. Systems running on a broad range of hardware
No direct references to this goal appear in
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x but some results of it are
mentioned in the RATIONALE.
Minimal Changes to Historical Implementations
There are no known historical implementations that
will not have to change in some area to conform to
POSIX 1003.1-200x. Nonetheless, there is a set of functions,
types, definitions, and concepts that form an
interface that is common to most historical
implementations. IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x specifies
that common interface and extends it in areas where
there has historically been no consensus,
preferably
1. By standardizing an interface like one in an
historical implementation; e.g., directories,
or;
2. By specifying an interface that is readily
implementable in terms of, and backwards
compatible with, historical implementations,
such as the extended tar format defined in
the pax utility or;
3. By specifying an interface that, when added
to an historical implementation, will not
conflict with it, for example, the function.
Required changes to historical implementations have
been kept to a minimum, but they do exist.
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x is specifically not a
codification of a particular vendor's product.
It should be noted that implementations will have
different kinds of extensions. Some will reflect
``historical usage'' and will be preserved for
execution of pre-existing applications. These
functions should be considered ``obsolescent'' and
the standard functions used for new applications.
Some extensions will represent functions beyond the
scope of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x. These need to be
used with careful management to be able to adapt to
future IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x extensions and/or port
to implementations that provide these services in a
different manner.
Minimal Changes to Existing Application Code
A goal of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x was to minimize
additional work for the developers of applications.
However, because every known historical
implementation will have to change at least
slightly to conform, some applications will have to
change. ]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 27
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 44)
[DWC-745] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3339 Line: 1147 Section: A.3
Problem:
(base definitions rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " character." on P3339, L1147 to ".".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 28
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 45)
[DWC-746] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3339 Line: 1148 Section: A.3
Problem:
(base definitions rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " character," on P3339, L1148 to ",".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 29
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 46)
[DWC-747] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3339 Line: 1149 Section: A.3
Problem:
(base definitions rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3339, L1149 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 30
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 37)
[DWC-738] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1479 Section: A.5
Problem:
(file format notation rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change " characters" on P3349, L1479 to "s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 31
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 47)
[DWC-748] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1480 Section: A.5
Problem:
(file format notation: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " characters)." on P3349, L1480 to "s).".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 32
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 51)
[DWC-752] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1482 Section: vi
Problem:
(vi: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P101, L2843-2846) to be a synonym for
"space character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"space character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3349, L1482 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 33
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 38)
[DWC-739] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1484 Section: A.5
Problem:
(file format notation rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change " characters." on P3349, L1484 to "s.".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 34
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 48)
[DWC-749] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1499 Section: A.5
Problem:
(file format notation: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3349, L1499 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 35
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 49)
[DWC-750] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3349 Line: 1500 Section: A.5
Problem:
(file format notation: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3349, L1500 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 36
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 66)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885984.24168_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Change "7/4/1776" to "July 4th 1776"
Change "7/14/1789" to "July 14th 1789"
And no it does not matter that these are before the Epoch.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3358 Line: 1862 Section: A.7.3.5
Problem:
The example dates given on this and the following line are shown in the
U.S. specific form (m/d/y). This may be confusing for e.g. European
readers.
Action:
Change "7/4/1776" to "the fourth of July in the year 1776", and (on line
1863) "7/14/1789" to "The fourteenth of July in the year 1789". Also, is
it appropriate to give, as examples, dates that precede the Epoch?
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 37
Jon.Hitchcock@uniplex.co.uk Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 32)
{jjh9} Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:16:34 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
The inconsistency is brought about due to the merger of the
system interfaces and the shell and utilities volumes. The system
interfaces follow ISO C and the requirements from setlocale(),
whereas the shell and utilities specifiy the precise behavior
in their Environment sections.
Refer to the changes in XCU ERN 1 for details of changes to
XBD to resolve the problem.
Change 1885-1888
For an implementation where the default locale is the POSIX
locale and where an invalid environment variable causes
set_locale(LC_ALL, "") to fail, or an implementation where an
invalid environment variable causes set_locale(LC_ALL, "") to
succeed in setting the default locale, the text about locale
implies that any utilities written in standard C and conforming
to IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x must [?can] issue the following call:
setlocale(LC_ALL, "")
If this were omitted, the ISO C standard specifies that the C
locale would be used.
Change the rationale from line 1889- to say:
"The original rationale for IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 said:
{ include lines 1889-1899.}
In this revision, the behavior of the system interfaces,
if any of the environment variables are invalid, is unspecified.
This is in line with the definition of the setlocale() function.
The behavior for the utilities is as defined within the individual
ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES sections for each utility. The difference
is probably due to the historical development of the
document."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3359 Line: 1889-1899 Section: Internationalization
Problem:
Line 1898 says the results are unspecified if one of the LC_*
variables has an invalid setting. This is contradicted in the other
documents.
For more explanation see austin-group message 1280, which was not
disagreed with.
Action:
Get someone who knows the history to revise the rationale. Failing
that, replace lines 1889-1899 by the following:
The X/Open Commands and Utilities, Issue 3 specification specified
that if any of the environment variables were invalid, utilities would behave as if none of the variables had been defined, and so the
implementation-specific default locale would be used. It was argued
that it would be more confusing for a user to have partial settings
occur in case of a mistake. All utilities would behave in one
language/cultural environment. Furthermore, it provided a way of forcing the whole environment to be the implementation-defined default.
However, because there are an unknown number of variables for
implementation-defined categories, it was impossible for a portable
shell script to force the use of the POSIX locale regardless of any
locale set by the user or implemented in the operating system. Also,
in some cases, it would be appropriate for utilities that use LANG and
related variables to exit with an error if any of the variables are
invalid. And users typing individual commands at a terminal might
want date to work if LC_MONETARY is invalid as long as LC_TIME is valid.
Therefore, IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x requires that the precedence rules in
Chapter 8.2 of XBD (LC_ALL, LC_*, LANG) are applied independently for
each category so that the locale for one category cannot be changed
by setting the variable for another category. The whole environment
can be forced to be the implementation-defined default by setting
LC_ALL to an invalid value.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 38
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 16)
[DST-41] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3360 Line: 1926 Section: A.8.3
Problem:
I can't make "6" characters out of this anyway I can imagine.
Action:
6->5
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 39
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 17)
[DST-42] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
This should be "a-umlaut"
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3364 Line: 2077 Section: A.9.3.5
Problem:
Looks as if a combining character didn't.
Action:
'a -> (probably).
[Ed recommendation: Accept as marked
Should be "a-umlaut"]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 40
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 18)
[DST-43] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3369 Line: 2262 Section: A.11
Problem:
Times change.
Action:
"uses" -> "used".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 41
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 39)
[DWC-740] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3372 Line: 2367 Section: A.11.1.6
Problem:
(canonical mode input processing rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change "non- characters," on P3372, L2367 to "non-s,".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 42
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 40)
[DWC-741] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3375 Line: 2490 Section: A.12.1
Problem:
(utility argument syntax rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change " characters" on P3375, L2490 to "s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 43
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 41)
[DWC-742] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3375 Line: 2492-2493 Section: A.12.1
Problem:
(utility argument syntax rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change " characters" on P3375, L2492-2493 to "s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 44
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 68)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886067.24185_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3375 Line: 2505 Section: A.12.1
Problem:
The statement that the command on line 2504 would be a syntax error
seems too strong. Section 12.2 in the Base Definitions says (line 7465)
that ranges greater than the signed 31-bit values are allowed, so an
implementation could syntactically accept the option value 3000000000,
yet reject it on semantic grounds.
Action:
Change "would be a syntax error" to "could be a syntax error".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 45
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 2 (rdvk# 35)
[DST-149] Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:36:04 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
This will be fixed As per other occurrence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3379 Line: 2614 Section: Introduction
Problem:
Again, delete or add to.
Action:
Delete. Also page 3511.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 46
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 20)
[DST-45] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3384 Line: 2731 Section: B.2.2
Problem:
"furthers the goal". Mostly this goal has been reached.
Action:
Delete sentence (altho if someone wants to recast it to reflect
future amendments, that's fine with me.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 47
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 21)
[DST-46] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3391 Line: 3015 Section: B.2.3
Problem:
wrong word.
Action:
"block" -> "blocking".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 48
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 22)
[DST-47] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
replace paragraph with:
The application writer is presented with a choice; the System V
interfaces or the POSIX interfaces (loosely derived from the Berkely
interfaces). The XSI profile prefers the System V interfaces, but
the POSIX interfaces may be more suitable for realtime or other
performance sensitive applications.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3401 Line: 3486 Section: omitted
Problem:
A bit salesy, here.
Action:
Replace paragraph:
The application writer is presented with a choice; the System V interfaces
or the POSIX interfaces (loosely derived from the Berkely interfaces).
The XSI profile prefers the System V interfaces, but the POSIX interfaces
are generally lighter weight (at runtime) and more suitable for realtime
or other highly performance sensitive applications.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 49
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 23)
[DST-48] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Replace lines 3516-3524 with
"Earlier versions of this standard contained non-normative materials
which tried to provide particularly high performance files, meeting
the goals in the list below. Consensus on these interfaces, and
how they might apply in increasingly common situations such as
disk arrays, could not be achieved. The consensus that could be
acheived is reflected in the discussion below."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3402 Line: 3515-3580 Section: B.2.8
Problem:
I believe that the advisory information stuff doesn't belong here (any
more).
(In a TR, maybe.)
Action:
Delete.
_____________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 50
gwinn@res.ray.com Bug in XRATd4 B.2.8 (rdvk# 61)
{JMG-4} Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:03:57 +0100 (BST)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
This appears to be user error, perhaps a problem with the reviewers
pdf reader utility. The error is not present in the text.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3402 Line: 3516 Section: B.2.8
Problem:
There seem to be lots of typos of the patten ' something', where there
is an extra space between the initial single quote character and the
word being quoted. This is the example, but the problem is general.
Action:
Do a global search and replace mapping ' something' to 'something',
eliminating the redundant space.
[Ed recommendation: this appears to be a problem
with the reader software that Joe is using]
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 51
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 62)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886439.24229_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3405 Line: 3661 Section: B.2.8
Problem:
The description of Ada rendez-vous is out of date. The current Ada
standard includes priority queuing.
Action:
Delete the sentence containing the word "Ada".
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 52
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 67)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886587.24255_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Change "However, in languages such as FORTRAN, it will not work
because these languages do not have pointer types."
to
"However, in languages without pointer types it will not work."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3418 Line: 4257 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
Fortran is described as a language without pointers; I believe this is
out of date with the current Fortran standard.
Action:
Delete mention of Fortran and just say "languages with pointer types".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 53
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 24)
[DST-49] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Delete the paragraph at 4295-4297
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3419 Line: 4295 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
Commands are now in-scope for us.
This duck doesn't work.
Action:
Normatively say "unspecified" for all other file types, unless we want
to do better.
I vaguely remember a handwave about this somewhere in frontmatter
for something, but I can't find it.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 54
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 25)
[DST-50] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept as marked, we need to obtain the reference and add to
the reference documents.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3419 Line: 4306 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
"POSIX.13" is an undefined term.
Action:
Reference the proper document (whatever it is, I've lost track.)
[Ed recommendation: Accept as marked,
we need to obtain the reference]
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 55
IEEE.BALLOTER BUG in P1003.1/D4 (rdvk# 64)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886738.24272_ieee] Wed Sep 27 16:16:57 BST 2000
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
Accept, we will need the reference too.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3419 Line: 4311 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
A lower-level standard (ANSI Ada) is referred to, where a higher-level
standard exists (ISO Ada).
Action:
Change "ANSI Ada" to "ISO Ada".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 56
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 26)
[DST-51] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3460 Line: 6151 Section: B.2.9
Problem:
1) "POSIX.1" is a bad reference.
2) *If* I understand what this is referring to, it's no longer true.
Action:
Delete paragraph.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 57
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 27)
[DST-52] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3516 Line: 8443 Section: C.1.9
Problem:
POSIX.1a is "us".
Action:
"value in..." -> "value for the system interfaces".
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 58
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 42)
[DWC-743] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3524 Line: 8745 Section: C.2.3.1
Problem:
(alias substitution rationale: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P53, L1722-1725) to be a synonym for
"blank character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"blank character character".
Action:
Change " characters" on P3524, L8745 to "s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 59
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 52)
[DWC-753] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3524 Line: 8757 Section: C.2.3.1
Problem:
(alias substitution: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P101, L2843-2846) to be a synonym for
"space character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"space character character".
Action:
Change " character," on P3524, L8757 to ",".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 60
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 53)
[DWC-754] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3525 Line: 8770-8771 Section: C.2.4
Problem:
(reserved words: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P101, L2843-2846) to be a synonym for
"space character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"space character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3525, L8770-8771 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 61
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 54)
[DWC-755] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3525 Line: 8772 Section: C.2.4
Problem:
(reserved words: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P101, L2843-2846) to be a synonym for
"space character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"space character character".
Action:
Change " character" on P3525, L8772 to "".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 62
Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XRATd4 (rdvk# 50)
[DWC-751] Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3532 Line: 9062 Section: A.6.4.1
Problem:
(state-dependent character encodings: character)
The term is defined (XBD6d4, P82, L2390-2394) to be a synonym for
"newline character". Therefore, the phrase " character" expands to
"newline character character".
Action:
Change "non- characters" on P3532, L9062 to "non-
s".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________________________________
Editorial Enhancement Request Number 63
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 28)
[DST-53] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3539 Line: 9338 Section: C.2.9.4
Problem:
missing "in", I think.
Action:
"shown" -> "shown in" (?).
[Ed recommendation: Accept]
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 64
ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org BUG in XRATd4 DST-127 (rdvk# 36)
{tog.sep25.1} Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:48:58 +0100
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3545 Line: 9593 Section: C
Problem:
I have read the aardvark request DST-127 and object to it.
Firstly the change is in the wrong place,
secondly this request is non-responsive - the suggested
text from ".2-1990" [sic] is not suitable for straight replacement.
Action:
Reject DST-127.
Change page 3553, line 9861
from
"See the RATIONALE ..."
To
"For the utilities included in IEEE Std 1003.1-200x see the RATIONALE..."
Insert after line 9861:
Rationale for exclusion of utilities
The set of utilities contained in IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x is
drawn from the base documents, with one addition, the c99
utility. This section contains rationale for some of the
deliberations that led to this set of utilities, and why
certain utilties were excluded.
Many utilities were evaluated by the standard developers;
more historical utilities were excluded from the base
documents than included. The following list contains many
common UNIX system utilities that were not included as
mandatory utilities, in the UPE, in the XSI extension or in
one of the software development groups. It is logistically
difficult for this rationale to distribute correctly the
reasons for not including a utility among the various
utility options. Therefore, this section covers the reasons
for all utilities not included in IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x.
This rationale is limited to a discussion of only those
utilities actively or indirectly evaluated by the standard
developers of the base documents, rather than the list of
all known UNIX utilities from all its variants.
adb The intent of the various software
development utilities was to assist in the
installation (rather than the actual
development and debugging) of applications.
This utility is primarily a debugging tool.
Furthermore, many useful aspects of adb are
very hardware specific.
as Assemblers are hardware specific and are
included implicitly as part of the compilers
in IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x.
banner The only known use of this command is as part
of the lp printer header pages. It was
decided that the format of the header is
implementation defined, so this utility is
superfluous to application portability.
calendar This reminder service program is not useful
to portable applications.
cancel The lp (line printer spooling) system
specified is the most basic possible and did
not need this level of application control.
chroot This is primarily of administrative use,
requiring super-user privileges.
col No utilities defined in IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x
produce output requiring such a filter. The
nroff text formatter is present on many
historical systems and will continue to
remain as an extension; col is expected to be
shipped by all the systems that ship nroff .
cpio This has been replaced by pax , for reasons
explained in the rationale for that utility.
cpp This is subsumed by c99 .
cu This utility is terminal oriented and is not
useful from shell scripts or typical
application programs.
cxref The intent of the various software
development utilities was to assist in the
installation (rather than the actual
development and debugging) of applications.
This utility is primarily a debugging tool.
dc The functionality of this utility can be
provided by the bc utility; bc was selected
because it was easier to use and had superior
functionality. Although the historical
versions of bc are implemented using dc as a
base, IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x prescribes the
interface and not the underlying mechanism
used to implement it.
dircmp Although a useful concept, the historical
output of this directory comparison program
is not suitable for processing in application
programs. Also, the diff -r command gives
equivalent functionality.
dis Disassemblers are hardware specific.
emacs The community of emacs editing enthusiasts
was adamant that the full emacs editor not be
included in the base documents because they
were concerned that an attempt to standardize
this very powerful environment would
encourage vendors to ship versions conforming
strictly to the standard, but lacking the
extensibility required by the community. The
author of the original emacs program also
expressed his desire to omit the program.
Furthermore, there were a number of
historical UNIX systems that did not include
emacs , or included it without supporting it,
but there were very few that did not include
and support vi .
ld This is subsumed by c99 .
line The functionality of line can be provided
with read .
lint This technology is partially subsumed by c99
. It is also hard to specify the degree of
checking for possible error conditions in
programs in any compiler, and specifying what
lint would do in these cases is equally
difficult.
It is fairly easy to specify what a compiler
does. It requires specifying the language,
what it does with that language, and stating
that the interpretation of any incorrect
program is unspecified. Unfortunately, any
description of lint is required to specify
what to do with erroneous programs. Since
the number of possible errors and
questionable programming practices is
infinite, one cannot require lint to detect
all errors of any given class.
Additionally, some vendors complained that
since many compilers are distributed in a
binary form without a lint facility (because
the ISO C standard does not require one),
implementing the standard as a stand-alone
product will be much harder. Rather than
being able to build upon a standard compiler
component (simply by providing c99 as an
interface), source to that compiler would
most likely need to be modified to provide
the lint functionality. This was considered
a major burden on system providers for a very
small gain to developers (users).
login This utility is terminal oriented and is not
useful from shell scripts or typical
application programs.
lorder This utility is an aid in creating an
implementation-specific detail of object
libraries that the standard developers did
not feel required standardization.
lpstat The lp system specified is the most basic
possible and did not need this level of
application control.
mail This utility was omitted in favor of mailx
because there was a considerable
functionality overlap between the two.
mknod This was omitted in favor of mkfifo , as
mknod has too many implementation-defined
functions.
news This utility is terminal oriented and is not
useful from shell scripts or typical
application programs.
pack This compression program was considered
inferior to compress .
passwd This utility was proposed in a historical
draft of the base documents but met with too
many objections to be included. There were
various reasons:
- Changing a password should not be viewed
as a command, but as part of the login
sequence. Changing a password should
only be done while a trusted path is in
effect.
- Even though the text in early drafts was
intended to allow a variety of
implementations to conform, the security
policy for one site may differ from
another site running with identical
hardware and software. One site might
use password authentication while the
other did not. Vendors could not supply
a passwd utility that would conform to
IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x for all sites
using their system.
- This is really a subject for a system
administration working group or a
security working group.
pcat This compression program was considered
inferior to zcat .
pg This duplicated many of the features of the
more pager, which was preferred by the
standard developers.
prof The intent of the various software
development utilities was to assist in the
installation (rather than the actual
development and debugging) of applications.
This utility is primarily a debugging tool.
RCS RCS was originally considered as part of a
version control utilities portion of the
scope. However, this aspect was abandoned by
the standard developers. SCCS is now
included as an optional part of the XSI
extension.
red Restricted editor. This was not considered
by the standard developers because it never
provided the level of security restriction
required.
rsh Restricted shell. This was not considered by
the standard developers because it does not
provide the level of security restriction
that is implied by historical documentation.
sdb The intent of the various software
development utilities was to assist in the
installation (rather than the actual
development and debugging) of applications.
This utility is primarily a debugging tool.
Furthermore, some useful aspects of sdb are
very hardware specific.
sdiff The ``side-by-side diff '' utility from
System V was omitted because it is used
infrequently, and even less so by portable
applications. Despite being in System V, it
is not in the SVID or XPG .
shar Any of the numerous ``shell archivers'' were
excluded because they did not meet the
requirement of existing practise.
shl This utility is terminal oriented and is not
useful from shell scripts or typical
application programs. The job control
aspects of the shell command language are
generally more useful.
size The intent of the various software
development utilities was to assist in the
installation (rather than the actual
development and debugging) of applications.
This utility is primarily a debugging tool.
spell This utility is not useful from shell scripts
or typical application programs. The spell
utility was considered, but was omitted
because there is no known technology that can
be used to make it recognize general language
for user-specified input without providing a
complete dictionary along with the input
file.
su This utility is not useful from shell scripts
or typical application programs. (There was
also sentiment to avoid security-related
utilities).
sum This utility was renamed cksum .
tar This has been replaced by pax , for reasons
explained in the rationale for that utility.
tsort This utility is an aid in creating an
implementation-specific detail of object
libraries that the standard developers did
not feel required standardization.
unpack This compression program was considered
inferior to uncompress .
wall This utility is terminal oriented and is not
useful from shell scripts or typical
application programs. It is generally used
only by system administrators.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Objection Enhancement Request Number 65
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 2 (rdvk# 33)
[DST-127] Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:36:04 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_64_ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
ERN 64 has the required text.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3545 Line: 9593 Section: C
Problem:
Restore E.4 from .2-1990 (the list of omitted commands).
Action:
Restore it.
[Ed recommendation: REJECT. There is no .2-1990.
This was considered when XRAT was bring drafted but the wording as is
needs considerable revision and was deemed not useful.
To be acceptable this aardvark needed to include replacement
text. Note that some parts of the rationale are also wrong,
for example the who utility is in .2 . ]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 66
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 30)
[DST-55] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3550 Line: 9768 Section: C.3
Problem:
What annex; what output displays?
Action:
Delete paragraph.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 67
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 29)
[DST-54] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3550 Line: 9800 Section: C.3.1
Problem:
Dangling ")".
Action:
Delete.
[Ed recommendation: Accept]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment Enhancement Request Number 68
donnte@microsoft.com Bug in XRATd4 Batch 1 (rdvk# 31)
[DST-56] Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:00:33 -0700
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3551 Line: 9819 Section: C.3
Problem:
Irrelevant ancient history. (Why a WG prioritized its work as it did
is simply of now value now.)
Action:
Delete paragraph.