@ Page xii Line 450 Section Preface Comment [TOG-XBD-001]
Problem:
rdvk #7 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx raises an objection to the
preface. The reviewers notes state that this is a left over
from the Base documents. At the time of production of draft 1
the project had not been approved as an IEEE project.
The preface will be replaced with a new preface later in the project
(completion due by draft 3)
Action:
Leave it to the editors to resolve as already noted in the reviewers
note
@ Page 3 Line 77 Section 1.3 Objection [TOG-XBD-002]
Problem:
This is an objection to rdvk #9 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
The proposed action misunderstands some of the basic principles
of the project.
A couple of points to note about the XSI notation and organization
of the document set.
(i) These documents are to be read as a set - they are
one logical document , there is one approved PAR. The splitting into
the existing physical volumes is a publishing matter (note that the
XSH is most likely to be published in a two volume set).
The definition of XSI at the moment is described in XSH/XCU in the
conformance section. It does seems clear that we need to have some
description/cross reference at a minimum in XBD to the conformance
sections where this is spelt out. The proposed replacement action
below suggests one.
(ii)Onto why XSI? For now, It has been assumed that
POSIX conformance would not equate to UNIX conformance for these
Base volumes.
XSI is used to describe the extensions over POSIX for conformance
requirements for the Single UNIX Specification.
See the diagram in the reviewers note and the conformance section
in XSH and XCU for an understanding of XSI.
The term XSI has been used for 10 years in connection with the XPG
series and the first and second versions of the base volumes of
the Single UNIX Specification.
XSI, refers to the X/Open System Interface, that is the application
programming interface for C and sh programming.
(iii) These documents are to act as both an IEEE standard and
an Open Group technical standard.
There would be one core set of documents - the note in the problem
statement suggesting the Single UNIX Spec to split its base documents
would be a major divergence from the intended goal of the project.
New functionality is being considered for merging into the POSIX base (the
initial suggestions have a reviewers note at the top of the man pages
in XSH, or are marked MAN on the man page),
but until all is merged, we need to retain a marking (or markings)
for extensions.
(v) The action statement also says "(Similarly for all other such notations
that represent leftovers from this document being a profile of POSIX.)"
This needs to be specific. Which "other such notations"?
The notations UP,OP,PI,UN are already stated in the long scope
as being subject to review , with a view to resolving the text
so they are not needed.
Notations such as SHM are for POSIX options.
Without specifics this is impossible to action, even if it were
to be agreed.
Action:
Reject rdvk #9 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx (suggesting removal of all XSI markings)
Add text cross referencing the XSH/XCU specifications
at the first use of XSI (page 3 line 76) as follows:
Change "The functionality described is an XSI extension." to
"The functionality described is an XSI extension (see section
2 of XSH, and section 2 of XCU for a description of the X/Open
System Interface extension. )."
@ Page 7 Line 171 Section 2.16 Comment [TOG-XBD-003]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #10 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
The terminology used is consistent with that used in POSIX 1003.2.
Action:
Suggest no change, unless specific problems can be identified with
the terminology used by POSIX 1003.2.
@ Page 16 Line 390 Section 2.68 Comment [TOG-XBD-004]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #13 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I disagree. This use of "may" is consistent. Its optional
whether a system generate a core file upon abnormal process
termination.
Action:
Do nothing, leave this line unchanged.
@ Page 16 Line 402 Section 2.71 Comment [TOG-XBD-005]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #15 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
There is no action specified, just words in quotes. Is
this suggested replacement text?
Note if so, that this is replacement text for 2.2.2.27 from POSIX.1-1996
Action:
Donn needs to clarify what his action is.
@ Page 17 Line 491 Section 2.79 Comment [TOG-XBD-006]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #16 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
The action is not clear. I'm not sure what the "appropriate"... is.
At the moment we refer to each physical book within the document
set as XSH, XCU and XBD respectively. Within a document we refer
to itself as "this document".
We should decide whether we want to continue to refer to the
books this way and what handle to use to refer to global requirements.
Action:
None proposed. However some discussion is needed.
@ Page 18 Line 452 Section 2.86 Comment [TOG-XBD-007]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #18 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Again I disagree with this may/might issue.
Action:
Leave text as is.
@ Page 37 Line 908 Section 2.199 Comment [TOG-XBD-008]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #23 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
This aardvark does not have an specific action to vote upon?
I think Donn should really propose a motion.
Action:
None.
@ Page 38 Line 951 Section 2.204 Comment [TOG-XBD-009]
Problem:
This is a comment against rdvk #24 from yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I do not feel that it belongs here as this defines the term "Period"
not dot.
Action:
Do nothing.
|