From isaak@ljo.dec.com Fri Apr 7 11:58:53 1995 Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA17035 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 7 Apr 1995 22:00:47 +0200 Received: from vanna.ljo.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95) id AA08716; Fri, 7 Apr 95 12:58:54 -0700 Received: from csac by vanna.ljo.dec.com; (5.65/1.1.8.2/10Oct94-8.2MPM) id AA24923; Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:49:39 -0400 Received: by csac.ljo.dec.com; id AA28027; Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:58:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:58:53 -0400 From: Jim Isaak- isaak@csac.ljo.dec.com Message-Id: <9504071958.AA28027@csac.ljo.dec.com> To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: POSIX Ada Ballot Comments X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 The ballot 14519-1 POSIX Ada binding ballot did complete successfully, the comments were: ------------------------------------------------------------ Australia (approval, ie. non-binding) - The provision of suitable hierachical packages for the revised version of Ada (8652) would be desirable. Canada voted no, based on internationalzation concerns, POSIX_Character must be defined in terms of ISO 10646 not left to implementation dependency. We would accept a binding interpretation which effectively redefined POSIX_Character in terms of 10646 instead of republishing. [They also express concern about the deviation between c and ada on real time issues and threads.] France: provides French language title Finally there is a detailed set of comments from ITTF on the changes needed to the editorial format prior to publication. (little things like get rid of all line numbers, etc.) These are "proforma", and IEEE already has established relationship with ITTF on how to move the document to ISO format. I have sent copies of all the comments to the Project Editor, and also the IEEE folks who are doing the coordination with ITTF. However, I suspect they will want a Disposition of comments to address the Canadian objection. [U.S., can you propose some text?] Thanks Jim