Document Number: AUSTIN/63 Title: XRATd4 Aardvark Change Request Report Revision Date: 2000-10-20 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 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 OPEN 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 OPEN ERN 39 Accept as marked ERN 40 Accept ERN 41 Accept ERN 42 Accept ERN 43 Accept ERN 44 OPEN 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 OPEN ERN 53 OPEN ERN 54 Accept as marked ERN 55 OPEN 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_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept (check typesetting) _____________________________________________________________________________ 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, we will try and integrate this 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_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ 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_____OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ 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_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN 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_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN 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_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ 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_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ 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_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ 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.