WG15 N644 IST/5/-/15 P314 UK Action Item Report to WG15, May 1996 9510-03 UK - give feedback on whether or not there is continued interest in the comprehensive test methods NP. (reformed from 9505-32 on the Convener). UK: The Test Methodology NP has largely been overcome by events. The UK no longer has manpower to pursue this NP; a number of interested parties having invested effort in the EWOS EG OSE and CT, where something similar to the WG15 proposal is being pursued. Within this EWOS effort, POSIX documents form the primary input for APIs. The UK proposes that WG15 should be active in monitoring this new work (within EWOS) to ensure that it continues to accommodate POSIX requirements. The UK recommends that the proposed NP characterised in WG15 N423 be dropped, and that WG15 should keep close watch on the EWOS work to ensure that it does not become overly complex. The UK specifically recommends that: . WG15 request a draft of EWOS/EG-CT/95/20 Issue 4.0 for a sanity check. . WG15 pass a copy of its 2003R (Revised) standard to EWOS for their information, and request EWOS to comment on how their work accommodates it. 9510-06 Member Bodies - submit issues on synchronization in writing or to the email reflector by April 8, 1996. No additional issues will be considered under the synchronization agenda item at the May, 1996 meeting. UK: The UK has no significant issue with the Synchronisation plan in its current form, and proposes no changes of its own, other than: . references to the now-defunct Rapporteur Groups should be removed The UK offers the following comments on WG15 N381 - Danish Comments on the WG15 Synchronisation Plan: The proposal to circulate IEEE PARs in the WG15 mailing appears mostly harmless and would not represent an excessive overhead. The proposal to circulate working drafts regularly after the document enters the IEEE ballot process, is more contentious; at this point the IEEE assembles a ballot group where its members pay ($30-00) to receive the drafts and to comment on them. The IEEE may have a problem issuing free copies to WG15, when individual members of WG15 are already eligible to join the ballot groups and are often members of the IEEE groups drafting the documents. The UK proposes instead that the Synchronisation Plan require that the IEEE 'ballot group formation' invitations be formally circulated in the WG15 mailings - again not an excessive overhead - (and/or by email if necessary) to ensure that all WG15 member bodies are advised that a draft is about to enter this critical phase, and to allow them to formally enter the process for those documents which are of crucial interest to them. 9510-08 Member Bodies - provide URLs and other information they would like posted to the WG15 web page. UK: The set of WG15 and WG15/RIN documents held at http://www.ex.ac.uk/~DCannon/WG15/WG15_sd-1.html are already referenced from the WG15 'web pages at dkuug.dk. One other URL, the Australian Open Systems page, might be appropriate: http://www.adfa.oz.au/DOD/dodtog24.html 9510-10 Member Bodies - review the full N595 document and the liaison report N607 and submit written contributions to be used to form the WG15 response to SC22 for a common plan of work within CEN/TC304. [N595 contains selected extracts from SC22 N1961, which is the full text of CEN/TC304/PT01] UK: The UK has discussed the above action at some length; the items referenced in N607 for particular consideration were: 1) "L/11113b Message interface with localisers: Providing input and output in natural languages is a major task in the localisation process. In many cases the maker of the application is not able to provide a localised product for all languages of the world, and a standard for specifying messages available to national localisers or users would make localisation available in more cultures. Tools for generating and maintaining message catalogues and APIs to interface the message catalogues are also needed." The table on P45 of SC22 N1961 (CEN/TC304/PT01) wrongly refers to this item as L/11113a. The UK feels that this is a useful proposal, and has no reason to think that N607's suggestion to proceed with the work in WG20 is misconceived. The UK believes that X/Open is working on similar functionality. 2) "L/1312 Update POSIX to cover more cultural conventions: The formal specification techniques for Locales in POSIX are to be extended to cover more classes of cultural conventions than is possible in the current version. This extension of the POSIX model is very slowly underway in WG20 and WG15." It is not clear to the UK exactly what is proposed here. Over time a wide variety of changes have been suggested for inclusion in 1003.2b. Detailed proposals are requested of CEN/TC304 before any constructive comment can be made on the technical merit of this requirement. N607 suggests that internationalisation expertise is limited in the IEEE and that therefore the proposed work should be carried out in WG15/RIN: it is not obvious to the UK that extensive internationalisation manpower is available in or to that group either. 3) "L/132 Formal Specification Techniques for cultural data (in addition to POSIX): Develop additional formal specifiaction techniques for cultural data. To be done in co-operation with SC21. Recently approved WI by SC22, CD expected in 1996." N607 indicates that this is WG20's 14652 project. SC22 N1961 mentions only X/Open as a source of research activity or standardisation. N607 goes on to suggest that WG15 should liaise strongly with WG20 to ensure POSIX alignment, and the UK endorses this proposal. 4) "L/2111b Guidelines on national specifications of cultural conventions: An NP from WG15 is out for ballot in JTC1, it has passed SC22 ballot recently. The work has been underway for two years, but have not had a lot of progress. European input would be beneficial to the project. Develop Euopean guidelines that can serve as input to the international work item." N607 indicates that this item would require the scope of the proposed NP to be enhanced to encompass all of the CEN requirement - with all that that entails. The UK has no clear picture of what extensions are involved, and requests that CEN/TC304 provide a detailed description of the technical aspects of the proposal. N607 goes on to propose that the work be undertaken in WG15/RIN; it is not clear that the existing NP will be processed in WG15/RIN, (if approved) due to manpower limitations, therefore the UK is less sure that an extended work item can be completed by that body. 5) "L/212 International cultural registry: Other ISO work is dependent on the existence of an international registry rather than a European one, making this a high priority item. The work on this has been stalled in SC22 and WG20, so the best way to proceed may be ... to fast-track ... the European cultural register." The UK had no objection to this proposal. 6) "L/31 Update POSIX to include locale default rules: POSIX locales are not always available for any language and culture, and a user then has a need for specifying another locale which is acceptable, for example which other language that messages are acceptable in, if the application does not have messages in the native language. This should be multi- level fallback rules, so that the user can specify a set of preferences. The internationalisation model and APIs need to be modified to accommodate this need. New, but small item for WG15." Again, the UK has an unclear picture of what is required here, and requests that CEN/TC304 provide a detailed technical description of the proposal. However, assuming that the proposal is intended to dovetail into L/11113b rather than duplicate any of that effort, the UK feels that the idea is a useful one. The proposal in N607 to pursue the work in WG15/IEEE seems appropriate. 7) "C/3131 Guide on conversion between UCS coding forms. A utility 'iconv' is defined in POSIX.2b, and an associated API should be defined, of example as part of WG20 internationalisation/UCS APIs. A guide will be developed for implementors of conversion functions in operating systems (such as POSIX iconv). This guide could be input to the WG20 work on APIs for internationalisation." N607 proposes that WG20 has planned work on APIs on coded character sets, and that the work should be progressed there. The UK has no objection to this, but notes that while the C standard now has multibyte character support, there is only one known implementation. The Panel was concerned that, like some previous Standards work, effort could be poured into this while the industry takes a different course. 8) "C/332 Support for locale registry in POSIX operating systems This work item will add support for linking to the International registry of Locales in ISO/IEC 9945. Support for the locales themselves is already in C, C++ and POSIX, but work to include support for the registry is not begun." This suggests to the UK that the proposal would permit the remote access of a locale registry over a network, for example. Again the technical detail is missing, and CEN/TC304 is requested to provide this in order that a meaningful response be possible. N607 suggests that the work be included in 1003.2b; if this has any hope of happening a detailed proposal is required very soon. Overall, the UK feels that many of the above ideas have merit: it is not clear however that there is the manpower available to produce the results - particularly in the timescales suggested, which are all wildly optimistic. Internationalisation expertise is exceptionally sparse; expected formal voting dates on all eight of the above items range from 1996 to 1998. SC22 N1961 contains over eighty items in total, some seventy of which are new items and all are targeted to be ready for formal vote before 1999. N607 ends by suggesting: "The most urgent work is L/2111b, L/212 and C/332. Based on my experience with work in this area, I would advise that the limited personal resources be gathered in one place, so that long liaison dialogues could be avoided. As the work is international in nature, and a number of relevant persons are not active in regional activities such as CEN or IEEE, my recommendation would be to do the work either in WG15 or WG20." Certainly the existing liaison structure is cumbersome, if not totally inadequate, for the degree of multi-committee interworking proposed by SC22 N1961, and the suggestion to concentrate manpower and effort in one place is a sound one. If the proposals in SC22 N1961 are accepted, SC22 should be requested to endorse this recommendation and nominate the preferred WG where work is to take place; deferring this decision to the SC22 plenary in September will make many of the proposed timescales in the document unattainable. 9510-11 Member Bodies - review N596 and provide written comments or extensions for the May, 1996 meeting. UK: No comment. 9510-12 Member Bodies and X/Open Liaison - review N622 in the context of providing an ISO specification in alignment with the Single Unix Specification and come to the May, 1996 meeting with a preferred tactical method to achieve this (if appropriate). UK: The UK does not feel that the SUS itself should be adopted as an IS, since its format is totally different to ITTF documents, and it defines areas already specified in 9945-1 and -2, but with different wording. If 9945-1 and 9945-2 cannot be amended to include the SUS extensions then the UK suggests developing a document which references 9945-1 and -2 then defines the extras offered by the SUS. 9510-28 UK - report on the status of the Framework for User Requirements (DISC) and distribute the document before the next meeting. (RGCPA 9505-06) UK: The document was published under the title: "A Framework for user Requirements for Information Technology" as BSI document DD 210:1992. 'DD' indicates Draft for Development and as such the document is regarded as a transient work intended for early review: this should have occurred in 1994, following which the revised document may have been converted to a British Standard, and ultimately proposed to ISO as the basis for a new work item. Our understanding is that no review has yet taken place, and the document may therefore be less relevant to current thinking than might be hoped. DD 210:1992 will be made available to WG15 for consideration. 9510-33 Member Bodies - identify appropriate users (of profiles) and seek feedback from them in the R&C process on how the profiles meet (or do not meet) their needs. (from RGCPA issue #2) [RGCPA 9105-02: What is the process for ensuring that user requirements are fully taken into account in profile harmonisation. A paper from the UK (DISC) was used as the basis for discussion (RGCPA N010). It was suggested that everything be left to SGFS and RGCPA should concentrate on coordination, not investigation. Action 9201.01 and 9201.04 raised to deal with forwarding N010. No feedback received as of 9210 meeting. Action 9310.09 raised. Status: Open] UK: The UK is unable to offer constructive input to this action. David Cannon Convener, IST/5/-/15 3-May-1996