From keld@dkuug.dk Thu Jun 18 19:38:51 1992
Received: by dkuug.dk (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA10224; Thu, 18 Jun 92 19:38:51 +0200
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 19:38:51 +0200
From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
Message-Id: <9206181738.AA10224@dkuug.dk>
To: jbettels@wadd.enet.dec.com, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re:  (SC22WG15.106) Re: WG15 N283: WG15 liaison statement to WG20
Cc: sc22wg20@dkuug.dk
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

I am sending this to WG20 too, as Ju:rgens message seems
to be directed to WG20 too  /Keld

Ju:rgen Bettels writes:
> >                 WG15 LIAISON STATEMENT TO WG20
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > WG15 has reviewed WG20 document N085 entitled "Extended
> > Identifiers", which encouraged discussion of its proposal, and
> > offers the following comments:
> > 
> > 1).  The POSIX Shell and Utilities standard (DIS 9945-2)
> >      provides facilities for locale-dependent specifications of
> >      character attributes that optionally are adjustable by the
> >      user or application on some systems.
> > 
> > 2).  WG15 believes that any extensions to programming language
> >      identifier requirements should be accomplished within the
> >      framework described in 1). above.
> 
> 
> I hope my collegues in WG20 disagree with this statement as it postulates that
> the requirements for identifiers can ONLY be correctly dealt with in the
> Posix locale framework. Clearly, WG20 has to take a wider view than the
> Posix locale model of course with the understanding that the WG15 requirements
> need to be satisfied.

Well, it is only a comment from WG15, and then WG20 should reply to it.

I am not so sure about my position on this. It may well be, that WG20
thinks that the WG15 model is limited to what is in POSIX now, and then
WG15 will say that the locale model is extensible to allow all the
things that WG20 wants to be in there.

If WG20 thinks that the POSIX locale model is not adequate, 
I would recommend WG20 to give some examples to this.

Keld