From keld@dkuug.dk Tue Mar 24 01:01:39 1992 Received: by dkuug.dk (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA24048; Tue, 24 Mar 92 01:01:39 +0100 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 92 01:01:39 +0100 From: Keld J|rn Simonsen Message-Id: <9203240001.AA24048@dkuug.dk> To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: action items X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 A partial response from me. /Keld > Attachment 7: Action Items > > Action 9111-03: Keld Simonsen & Johan van Wingen: Canvass and report > back on the proposed POSIX definition of the word "byte" > within SC2 and WG20. (Open action 9105-18.) There was a paper WG15 N208 adressing the problem, so the "byte" terminology problem has been canvassed and brought forward to WG15. The paper was addressed in Kista, and resolution 177 was produced. This should close the AI. > Action 9111-14: Danish Member Body to inform WG14 that references to > "common C" are being removed as part of the development of the > C binding to the LIS spec. WG14 was informed by email SC22WG15.31 . Closed. > Action 9111-24: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 liaison to ISO/IEC > JTC1/SC22/WG20 to forward to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 the > ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 Liaison Statement N229R and Resolution > 176 (draft 2). I have delivered these two documents to WG20, but WG20 has not resolved the issue yet. AI closed. We would need to track their resolution. > Action 9111-38: WG15 requests its Liaison to WG20 to ensure that they > take notice of N228 Item j. I did that at the WG20 meeting in Sunnyvale, USA. They knew it already, but anyway - we got more attention to this issue - that JTC1 wants an overview of i18n. AI closed. We may want to follow up on this issue, what will WG20 respond? > Action 9111-43: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 liaison to ISO/IEC > JTC1/SC22/WG20 to transmit to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 the then > current version of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15/RIN's draft > internationalisation questionnaire N214 for review and comment > by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20 and for their consideration in > relation to their scope of work. I did that at the WG20 meeting in Sunnyvale, USA. They were very interested in the questionaire, and urged WG15 to go on with the good work, keeping them informed. They would like WG15 to send it out soon. AI closed. What do we do with the paper? > Action 9111-44: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 Liaison to ISO/IEC > JTC1/SC22/WG20 to forward the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15/RIN > background paper N217R on internationalisation to ISO/IEC > JTC1/SC22/WG20 for their consideration. I did that at the WG20 meeting in Sunnyvale, USA. They liked it. They may use it for input to their requirements report. No further action now. AI closed. Keld