All,
Given that Keld has reviewed the existing POSIX standards and found no
problems, and the character terminology usage is the same as POSIX.2
and POSIX.2 was approved as an ISO standard, I don't
see the problem here (not that a specific problem is identified).
The XBD/XCU character terminology is based on Section 2.4 of POSIX.2
(and the corresponding specific text is in Chapter 4).
Either we need to identify specific problems with the terminology
used for characters in POSIX.2 or leave it as is to meet the scope
of the PAR.
Its probably worth pointing out that unless you see XSI shaded text
in the books, that the text is derived from text in the existing
POSIX standards, and so if you see a problem there, you probably
also have a problem with the underlying POSIX standard .
regards
Andrew
On Jun 30, 10:07pm in "Re: BUG in XBD", yyyy@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> I do not think the terminology is different from ISO character set
> terminology. We have actually undertaken a job to look thru
> the POSIX standards to see if there were any problems with terminology
> wrt SC2 terms, and found none. This was on the ISO POSIX standards,
> howvever, I am not so sure how SUS base documents compare.
> (because I have not been thru them). The paper we produced is a
> part of the 14766 project.
>
>
>-- End of excerpt from yyyy@xxxxxxxx
|