From ynk@osa.ilab.toshiba.co.jp Sat Dec 5 15:19:10 1992 Received: from iselgw.ilab.toshiba.co.jp ([133.196.1.31]) by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA09054 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Sat, 5 Dec 1992 15:19:10 +0100 Received: by TOSHIBA ISEL gateway (5.67+1.6W-MX); Sat, 5 Dec 92 23:19:03 JST +0900 Received: from ca1a.osa.ilab.toshiba.co.jp (ca1a) by yngicsl.ilab.toshiba.co.jp (5.67+1.6W/6.4J.6-ilab_1.20) id AA10957; Sat, 5 Dec 92 23:18:51 JST Received: by ca1a.osa.ilab.toshiba.co.jp (4.1/6.4J.6-ilab_1.0) id AA08897; Sat, 5 Dec 92 23:20:48 JST Return-Path: Message-Id: <9212051420.AA08897@ca1a.osa.ilab.toshiba.co.jp> To: a.walker@xopen.co.uk (Andrew Walker), keld@dkuug.dk (Keld Simonsen), arniep@canvm2.vnet.ibm.com (Arnie Powell), isaak@decvax.dec.com (Jim Isaak) Cc: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk From: ynk@ome.toshiba.co.jp (Yasushi Nakahara) Subject: (urgent) Input for Action 9210-72, 9210-73 - National Profile Issues Reply-To: ynk@ome.toshiba.co.jp Date: Sat, 05 Dec 92 23:09:28 JST X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Hello Andrew Walker, WG15 Liaison to SGFS, and WG15 people: I'm not sure that this is timely input or not, but following to the WG15 9210 minutes and action list below: | Action 9210-72: SGFS Liaison and RIN rapporteurs: Discuss how to | provide a report describing the SGFS perspective on National Profiles, | with especial consideration of the use of the terms POSIX | National Profile, National Locales, and National Profile. | | Action 9210-73: SGFS Liaison: Provide a report describing the SGFS | perspective on National Profiles, with especial consideration of | the use of the terms POSIX National Profile, National Locales, | and National Profile. I'm sending this to you Andrew (Liaison to SGFS), Keld (Lead Rapporteur of RIN), Arnie (Lead Rapporteur of RGCPA), and Jim (Convenor) with cc to all concerned people in WG15, in particular, those who are going to attend the upcoming SGFS adhoc meeting next week in UK. Please take this into your considerations. This input is organized as follows. - Background of National Profile Issues - Definitions of various types of Profile - Discussion items - Suggested action at the SGFS adhoc meeting 1. Background of National Profile Issues 1.1 A POSIX standard family such as ISO/IEC 9945-1 (POSIX.1), ISO/IEC DIS 9945-2 (POSIX.2), IEEE P1003.0 Draft (POSIX.0), IEEE P1003.18 (POSIX.18) and so forth, defines and uses various types of "profile", one of which is "National Profile" that is mainly used in POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 for internationalization arena. However, at this moment, POSIX.0 and POSIX.18 do not clearly cover such National Profile concept. The above fact may cause a confusion in discussing profile issues even within both ISO and IEEE POSIX groups. 1.2 POSIX.0 and POSIX.18 are discussing profiles based upon its reference model of POSIX Open System Environment (OSE), which is now closely related to the SGFS activity - developing a new set of Technical Reports (TR-10000 family). RGCPA was formed to identify profile issues and to coordinate with related (profile developing/standardizing) groups like IEEE, NIST, SGFS, EWOS, OIW, AOW and so on, in order to solve the issues and to harmonize their solutions. 1.3 During the process of making IEEE POSIX (Draft) Standards into ISO POSIX (Draft) Standards, internationalization (I18N) and localization (L10N) requirements for the (draft) standards have led to adoption of a concept of "National Profile" to meet national/regional standardization requirements of some I18N/L10N features by specifying certain options and parameters of the international standards, while keeping the international standards themselves as simple and globally applicable as possible. Unfortunately, however, there is no good guideline for development of such National Profiles at this moment and therefore RIN is now discussing and proposing to develop a new technical report of type 3 such as "Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles and Locales". Since a (POSIX) National Profile is considered as one type of (POSIX) Profiles, there are great concerns about how the (POSIX) National Profile concept relates to, and harmonizes with, other (POSIX) Profiles and how it could fit in with generic profiles such as International Standardized Profiles (ISPs) in an SGFS' sense. 2. Definitions of various types of Profile As mentioned above, there are various types of profile around POSIX standards. To clarify such concepts, this section collects definitions of various profiles as well as related various concepts of conformance. 2.1 POSIX.1 (ISO/IEC 9945-1) (A) Application Conformance o Strictly Conforming POSIX.1 Application [1.3.2.1]: A Strictly Conforming POSIX.1 Application is an application that requires only the facilities described in this part of ISO/IEC 9945 and the applicable language standards. Such an application shall accept any behavior described in this part of ISO/IEC 9945 as *unspecified* or *implementation-defined*, and for symbolic constants, shall accept any value in the range permitted by this part of ISO/IEC 9945. o Conforming POSIX.1 Application [1.3.2.2] - ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX.1 Application [1.3.2.2.1]: An ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX.1 Application is an application that use only the facilities described in this part of ISO/IEC 9945 and approved Conforming Language bindings for any ISO or IEC standard. Such an application shall include a statement of conformance that documents all options and limit dependencies, and all other ISO or IEC standards used. - Conforming POSIX.1 Application [1.3.2.2.2]: A Conforming POSIX.1 Application differs from an ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX.1 Application in that it also may use specific standards of a single ISO/IEC member body referred to here as "." Such an application shall include a statement of conformance that documents all options and limit dependencies, and all other standards used. o Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions [1.3.2.3]: A Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions is an application that differs from a Conforming POSIX.1 Application only in that it uses nonstandard facilities that are consistent with this part of ISO/IEC 9945. Such an application shall fully document its requirements for these extended facilities, in addition to the documentation required of a Conforming POSIX.1 Application. A Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions shall be either an ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions or a Conforming POSIX.1 Application Using Extensions. (B) Profile [Annex D (informative) - Profile] o Applications Environment Profile (AEP) [D.1.1]: An Application Environment Profile (AEP) is the specification of a complete and coherent subset of an Open System Environments, together with the options and parameters necessary to support a class of applications for interoperability or application portability, including consistency of data access and human interfaces. Where there are several AEPs for the same OSE, they are harmonized. AEPs are the basis for procurement and conformance testing and are the target environment for software development. o Application Specific Environment (ASE) [D.1.2]: An Application Specific Environment (ASE) is the specification of a complete and coherent subset of an Application Environment Profile, together with interfaces, services, or supporting formats outside of the profile, that are required by a particular application for its installation and execution. o Application Specific Environment Description (ASED) [D.1.3]: An Application Specific Environment Description (ASED) is the specification of an Application Specific Environment, together with the specific options and parameters required; interfaces, services, or supporting formats outside of the profile; and resource requirements necessary for the satisfactory operation of the application. o Open System Environment (OSE) [D.1.9]: An Open System Environment is a comprehensive and consistent set of international information technology standards and functional standards (profiles) that specify interfaces, services, and supporting formats to accomplish interoperability and portability of applications, data, and people. These are based on International Standards (ISO, IEC, CCITT, ...). o POSIX Open System Environment [D.1.10]: A POSIX Open System Environment is a comprehensive and consistent set of ISO/IEC, regional, and national information technology standards and functional standards (profiles) that specify interfaces, services, and supporting formats for interoperability and portability of applications, data, and people that are in accord with ISO/IEC 9945 (POSIX). No single component of the OSE, including ISO/IEC 9945, is expected to be required in all such profiles. (C) National Profile [Annex E (informative) - Sample National Profile]: [ISO/IEC 9945-1 does not give a clear definition of National Profile. But, the first paragraph of Annex E below provides a rough description of the National Profile concept.] One class of "community of interest" for which profiles (as discussed in Annex D) are useful is specific countries, where the general characteristics warrant specific focus to serve the needs of users in those countries. Such needs lead to a number of implications concerning the options available within this part of ISO/IEC 9945 and may warrant Specification of complementary standards as well. ... (some lines omitted) ... A subclass of conforming implementations can be identified that meet the requirements of a specific profile. By documenting these either in national standards, in a document similar to an ISO/IEC ISP (an International Standardized Profile), or in an informative annex (such as this), there can be referenced in a consistent manner. 2.2 POSIX.2 (ISO/IEC DIS 9945-2.2 or IEEE P1003.2 Draft 12) POSIX.2 provides neither a clear definition of National Profile nor an additional consideration of Application Conformance and Profile issues. Rather, it just inherits POSIX.1 descriptions of Application Conformance and (National) Profile, by only replacing "POSIX.1" with "POSIX.2" in such sentences. (A) Application Conformance [1.3.2] Almost the same as the POSIX.1 except the name "POSIX.2 Application" instead of "POSIX.1 Application". (B) Profile [Annex F (informative) - Portability Consideration] Unlike POSIX.1, POSIX.2 does not touch on profile types, but it gives (C) National Profile [Annex G (informative) - Sample National Profile]: Similar to POSIX.1, POSIX.2 just provides an Annex of Sample National Profile without giving a clear definition of National Profile. 2.3 Guidelines for POSIX National Profiles, Draft (SC22/WG15 N212) The draft "Guidelines for POSIX National Profile (GNP)" being developed by the Japanese National Body has the following descriptions/definitions. (A) Conformance o POSIX National Body Conformance [3.1.3] It is a concept of the degree of preciseness of the coincidence between the specifications of a realized POSIX system and the POSIX National Profile. Since POSIX National Profile is not necessarily included in the POSIX Profile, systems which pass the POSIX National Body Conformance may not pass the POSIX Conformance. o National Profile and its Application Conformance [6] Application Environment Profile and National Profile may be based on National Standards, and therefore it is necessary to coordinate in defining parameters and option selections from the view point of international harmonization to support international application portability and interoperability. Granting this fact, there are several levels of conformance both for a given POSIX application environment profile and a given POSIX National Profile as follows: For Application Environment Profile (AEP); (1) Strictly Conforming POSIX Application for POSIX AEP: An application that can be executed for any parameters and options for POSIX (2) ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX Application for POSIX AEP: An application that requires only specific POSIX related parameters and options. (3) ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX Application using Extensions for POSIX AEP: An application that requires not only specific POSIX related parameters and options but also other ISO/IEC standards and their international profiles. For POSIX National Profile (NP); (1) National Body Conforming POSIX Application for POSIX NP: An application that requires only the POSIX related parameters and options defined in POSIX National Profile. (2) National Body Conforming POSIX Application using Extensions for POSIX NP: An application that requires POSIX related parameters and options defined in POSIX National Profile, national profiles for other ISO/IEC standards, and national body standards. (B) Profile o POSIX Profile [3.1.1]: Profile for International Standard is a set of specifications of parameters, selections of the optional items and recommendations of implementation related matters. POSIX Profile corresponds to the same concept of Profile for the POSIX International Standard. (C) National Profile o POSIX National Profile [3.1.2]: POSIX National Profile is a subset of the POSIX Profile which is strongly related to the culture dependent aspects of the POSIX. It also contains the definitions and recommendations for the nation and/or area specific aspects (e.g. use of the coded character sets and so on). 2.4 POSIX.0 (IEEE P1003.0 Draft 15, SC22/WG15 N297) (A) Conformance N/A (B) Profile o Profile [2.2.2.39]: A set of one or more base standards, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, subsets, options, and parameters function. o Application Environment Profile (AEP) [2.2.2.6]: A profile, specifying a completed and coherent specification of the OSE, in which the standards, options, and parameters chosen are necessary to support a class of applications. o Component Profile (CP) [2.2.2.9, 6.4]: A Component profile is (mostly) a conforming subset of a single standard. The profile developers specify mandatory options for a specific domain, options that are not desirable for that domain, gaps in that parent standard, and may identify specifications to fill that gap. o Application Area Profile (AAP) [2.2.2.5, 6.4]: An Application Area Profile is created from multiple standards that specify multiple, diverse types of functionality needed for a particular application area (e.g., database, networking, graphics, operating system). The application area profile developers specify all the diverse standards necessary for the application area in question. Within each standard, they identify mandatory options, functions and options that are not needed, gaps in the standards, and may identify specifications to fill the gaps. o Platform Profile (PP) [2.2.2.33, 6.4]: A Platform Profile focuses on the functionality and interfaces needed for a particular type of platform. The platforms could be traditional platforms (such as time sharing systems) or relatively new emerging platforms (e.g., workstations, personal computers, or symmetric multiprocessing systems). A platform profile could be created from one or multiple diverse standards. As with other types of profiles, the profile developers have to specify the standards, options, standards gaps, and may identify specification to fill the gaps. o Organization-Specific Profile [6.4]: o Industry-Specific Profile [6.4]: o Standardized Profile [2.2.2.49, 6.4]: A balloted, formal, harmonized document that specifies a profile. o POSIX Standardized Profile (POSIX SP) [2.2..2.37, 6.4]: A Standardized Profile that specifies the application of certain POSIX base standards in support of a class of applications and does not require any departure from the structure defined by the POSIX.0 Reference Model for POSIX systems. (C) National Profile N/A 2.5 POSIX.18 (IEEE P1003.18 Draft 6) (A) Application Conformance o Strictly Conforming Application [3.1.2, B.1]: An application that does not exceed the minimal bounds of this profile. An application is strictly conforming to this profile is one that is either strictly conforming to all the applicable base standards specified by this profile, or one that differs from a strictly conforming application to those base standards only by the use of features required by this profile. Such an application shall accept any behavior described in the applicable base standards as further constrained by this profile, and for symbolic constants shall accept any value in the range permitted by the base standards as modified by this profile. Such applications are permitted to adapt to the availability of facilities that are optional either in this profile or the applicable base standards. o Conforming Application [3.1.2, B.2]: An application that does not exceed the bounds of this profile. An application conforming to this profile is an application that uses only the facilities described in this profile, the applicable base standards referenced herein, and other base standards. Such an application shall include a statement of conformance that documents all options and limit dependencies, and all base standards used that are not specified by this profile. (B) Profile o Application Environment Profile (AEP) [3.2.2]: The specification of a complete and coherent subset of an OSE, together with the options and parameters necessary to support a class of applications for interoperability or applications portability, including consistency of data access and human interfaces. AEPs are intended for use in procurement, conformance testing, and designating a software engineering target. o Platform Environment Profile (PEP) [3.2.9]: A generalization of the concept of application environment profile that will serve a broad range of types of applications and that is intended be used as the basis of a profile to meet the needs of a narrower range of applications. (C) National Profile N/A 2.6 TR-10000 (ISO/IEC TR 10000-1:1990) (A) Conformance Annex C (informative) of TR-10000 contains guidelines for conformance requirements of profiles, which is not related to discussion of relationship between types of profile and application/platform conformance to the related profiles and base standards and hence it is omitted here for this report. (B) Profile o Profile [3.1.2]: A set of one or more base standards, and, where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, subsets, options and parameters of those base standards, necessary for accomplishing a particular function. o International Standardized Profile (ISP) [3.1.1]: An internationally agreed-to, harmonized document which identifies a standard or group of standards, together with options and parameters, necessary to accomplish a function or set of functions. NOTE - An International Standardized Profile includes the specification of one or more Profiles. (C) National Profile N/A 3. Discussion items At the RIN meeting and the WG15 plenary meeting in 9210, the National Profile discussions were done as follows. 1) First, RIN discussed the issues and drafted two resolutions: 4a and 4b. 2) Since we RIN did not sufficient time to discuss the proposed draft resolution 4a in detail, RIN decided to adopt a modified resolution 4b and to ask the WG15 plenary for its suggestions and decisions. 3) The WG15 plenary had a small discussion on this, however, due to tome constraint the plenary decided to request its SGFS Liaison and RIN members, as action items, to further discuss the issues around National Profile and how to input a report or such issues to the SGFS adhoc meeting. [See the Action 9210-72, and 9210-73 as described in the beginning part of this email.] As such, for your information I'm enclosing the original two RIN draft resolutions 4a and 4b and the final resolution 4. Please look over these for your further considerations. : Draft Resolution.RIN9210-4a: Issues on National Profile to be forwarded : to SGFS : : RIN requests that WG15 approve the following issues to be forwarded to : the upcoming SGFS (authorized subgroup) meeting. : : Whereas [description/status of POSIX National Profile], : : Whereas [description/concerns of conformance], : : Whereas [description/questions of relationship between ISP and : National Profile], : : Whereas [description/questions of relationship between Locales : and National Profile], : : Therefore, WG15 requests the Liaison (from WG15 to SGFS) to forward : the following issues to SGFS. : : Issue RIN-1: Concerning the relationship between ISP and National : Body defined set of parameters and options. : : 1) Can such National Body defined set of parameters : and options be registered as an ISP in the SGFS sense? : : 2) Can such registered set be called a "National Profile"? : : 3) If a proposed National Profile for ISP registration : is rejected by ISO ballot, can the National Body : still standardize it as their "national standard"? : : 4) what should occur if a National Body wants to include : super-setting features (i.e. to point non standardized : interfaces/parameters)? : : Issue RIN-2: Definition of National Profile. : : WG15(/RIN) is currently using the following definitions : of POSIX Profile, POSIX National Profile. : : POSIX Profile: : Profile for International Standard (ISP) is a set of : specifications of the parameters, the selections of : optional items and the recommendations of the : implementation related matters. : POSIX Profile corresponds to the same concept of ISP : for the POSIX International Standard. : : POSIX National Profile: : POSIX National Profile is a subset of the POSIX Profile : which is strongly related to the culture dependent : aspects of the POSIX. It also contains the definitions : and recommendations for the nation and/or area specific : aspects (e.g. the use of the coded character sets and : so on). : : POSIX National Body Conformance: : It is a concept of the degree of preciseness of the : coincidence between the specifications of a realized : POSIX system and the POSIX National Profile. Since a : POSIX National Profile is not necessarily included in : the POSIX Profile, systems which pass the POSIX : National Body Conformance may not pass the POSIX : Conformance. : : : 1) Is SGFS going to define a kind of "national profile" : in its TR10000-1 (Generic) or in its TR10000-3 (OSE)? : : 2) Could SGFS give WG15 advice on any conflicts of such : definitions. : : Issue RIN-3: Concerning internationalization features in ISP and : Taxonomy (Cultural elements in ISP and its Taxonomies) : : Since internationalization features are not in a single : domain and they are in cross functional arena, : : 1) How do such cross components fit in with the current : SGFS's ISP model? : : 2) Can cultural elements be categorized along other : (orthogonal) axes? : : 3) Can each cultural element can be standardized/registered : as an ISP in SGFS sense? : : ______________________________________________________________ : : : Draft Resolution.RIN9210-4b: National Profile Issues : : WG15 RIN believes that guidelines for the production of : specifications which encompass the aspects currently : defined by the usage of the terms "National Profiles" : and "National Locales" within WG15 are essential elements : in the advancement of internationalization efforts within : the POSIX OSE. : : Further, WG15 RIN is supportive of the concept of : producing type 3 technical reports which provide : guidelines for the specification of "POSIX National : Profiles" and "POSIX National Locales" as described : in the NPs for such work as proposed by Japan. : : WG15 RIN recognizes that there is confusion within SGFS as : to the use of the term "National Profiles" and how : that definition relates to the current work of SGFS : and the relationship of the work of SGFS to that of : WG15. : : Two possible alternatives for the advancement of the : needed work are: : : 1. Perform the necessary educational and coordination : effort with SGFS through appropriate channels, with the : objective of obtaining SGFS support for the work : described in the NPs proposed by Japan, and the : assignment of such work to WG15 (recognizing that such : educational and coordination effort may substantially : delay any such guideline documents). : : 2. Change the terms used to describe the concept of : "National Profiles" within WG15 so that the term does : not cause alarm within SGFS, thereby allowing the work : to proceed within WG15 (recognizing that such a change : of terms would also require changes to 9945-1 and : 9945-2). One possible alternative term would be "POSIX : National Template", with an associated "POSIX National : Locale". : : RIN requests further guidance from the WG15 plenary as : to how to proceed with its recommendations in relation : to the work proposed by the draft NPs submitted by Japan. | Final Resolution.RIN9210-4: National Profile, POSIX OSE and SGFS | | WG15 RIN believes that guidelines for the production of | specifications which encompass the aspects currently defined by | the usage of the terms "National Profiles" and "National Locales" | within WG15 are essential elements in the advancement of | internationalization efforts within the POSIX OSE. | | Further, WG15 RIN is supportive of the concept of producing type 3 | technical reports which provide guidelines for the specification of | "POSIX National Profiles" and "POSIX National Locales" as described | in the NPs for such work as proposed by Japan and Denmark. | | WG15 RIN recognizes that there is no appropriate discussion within | POSIX.0 and SGFS as to the use of the term "National Profiles" | and how that definition relates to the current work of SGFS and the | relationship of the work of SGFS to that of WG15. RIN has a strong | concern that this may cause a unnecessary confusion within the SGFS | OSE and the POSIX OSE work, in particular, in internationalization | arena (and other cross functional arena as well). | | Two possible alternatives for the advancement of the needed work are: | | 1. Perform the necessary educational and coordination effort | with SGFS through appropriate channels, with the objective | of obtaining SGFS support for the work described in the NPs | proposed by Japan and Denmark, and the assignment of such | work to WG15 (recognizing that such educational and | coordination effort may substantially delay any such guideline | documents). | | 2. Change the terms used to describe the concept of | "National Profiles" within WG15 so that the term does not | cause alarm within SGFS, thereby allowing the work to proceed | within WG15 (recognizing that such a change of terms would | also require changes to 9945-1 and 9945-2). One possible | alternative term would be "POSIX National Template", with an | associated "POSIX National Locale". | | RIN requests further guidance from the WG15 plenary as to how | to proceed with its recommendations in relation to the work | proposed by the draft NPs submitted by Japan and Denmark. Also, I would like to include a part of Japanese comments on POSIX.2b/D4 below which seems closely related to this kind of discussion. Actually based upon Hal's suggestion at the POSIX.2b adhoc meeting in Utrecht, Jim and I discussed this issue in Reading to conclude that we need further discussion about the issues in conjunction with National Profile, POSIX OSE and SGFS ISP models. % ____________________________________________________________________________ % ITSCJ/POSIX WG (Yasushi Nakahara) Phone: +81-428-33-1347 Seq: 13 of 13 % Email:ynk@ome.toshiba.co.jp FAX: +81-428-32-0018 % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- % Sect Global (POSIX.2/D11.2 Resolutions) % % Problem: % % After careful reading of the ISO CD POSIX.2/D11.2 Ballot Dispositions % (ISO SC22/WG15 N281), we found that some of the resolutions are not % clear or some of the problems are not solved yet in the POSIX.2/D12. % % The following are such our comments in the previous ballot: % % ITSCJ.5, ITSCJ.8, ITSCJ.46 % % Action: % % We are attaching the previous comments hereafter. % Give more clear explanation or update the DIS POSIX.2 as % indicated in the Ballot Resolutions. % % @====================================================== % @ Final= Comment, Original= Comment, TR= hlj, BG= 182-5 % @ Resolution= Accepted % @------------------------------------------------------ % @182 1/3 c 5 a % Sect 1.3.2 (Application Conformance) COMMENT. page 15-16 % % Problem: % Conformance % % Section 1.3.2 Application Conformance says that there are four % categories of application conformance. % % - 1.3.2.1 Strictly Conforming POSIX.2 Application % - 1.3.2.2.1 ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX.2 Application % - 1.3.2.2.2 Conforming POSIX.2 Application % - 1.3.2.3 Conforming POSIX.2 Application Using Extensions % % The idea of " Conforming" is acceptable, but we % think that it is necessary to reconsider about the relationship % between ISO/IEC Conforming POSIX Application and % Conforming POSIX Application, since without suitable "guidelines" % it will mislead to incompatibilities among "nations". % % For example, we think character encoding and character handling % using "wchar_t" are very important for applications as well as % implementations. However, if one defines a codeset % in its "National Profile" while others do not, there will be % serious problems of international portability and/or compatibility % of POSIX Conforming Applications. % % Action: % % Provide suitable guidelines on what and how to specify some features % and options for such ISO/IEC Conformance and % Conformance. % % ------------------------------------------------------ % RESOLUTION: % There are two sources of guidelines. The first is the existing % pointer to the 9945-1 rationale, where the hierarchy of % application conformance classes is described. That hierarchy % implies that strictly conforming applications and those that % rely on international standards (such as 10646) are more % portable than those that require national standards (such as % ASCII). % % The second is the new Annex F on portability considerations, % as mandated by the TSG-1 Final Report. % % ====================================================== 4. Suggested action at the SGFS adhoc meeting With the above information of section 1 through 3 in mind, I would personally suggest you Andrew (Liaison to SGFS) that if the adhoc meeting could have an occasional session (i.e., the SGFS people seem to take an interest in National Profile issues at the meeting and the meeting agenda could have such occasional time to discuss the issues), you may (formally or informally) introduce the WG15/RIN discussion around the National Profile issues and initiate their discussion by asking them several questions described in the Draft RIN Resolution 9210-4a above. Again, I believe that the major points of our concerns are the following. (1) Definition of National Profile (in an SGFS' sense) (2) Relationship between ISP and National Profile (3) Positioning of internationalization/localization features in ISPs or National Standardized Profiles (NSPs). On another note. This is just my personal observation, but it would be worth mentioning here that each National standard itself which is derived from an International Standard can be considered as one of National Profiles of such International Standard. How do you think? Also any comments and opinions from WG15 members, particularly from RIN and RGCPA people, are welcome. Please let us Andrew and me know your WG15 members' thoughts. Anyway, POSIX internationalization model do requires the concept of National Profile, I believe, and thus needs harmonization with POSIX OSE and SGFS ISP models. Andrew, please forward these concerns, as well as your thoughts and other WG15 people's comments and opinions, to the SGFS people in an most appropriate and effective way. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Best Regards, Yasushi Nakahara TOSHIBA Corp. Phone: +81 428-33-1346|1347 Fax: +81 428-32-0018 Email: ynk@ome.toshiba.co.jp | ..!tsbome!ynk | y.nakahara@xopen.co.uk | y.nakahara@ui.org