From james.isaak@ljo.dec.com Tue Dec 17 17:05:09 1996 Received: from mail13.digital.com (mail13.digital.com [192.208.46.30]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA08939 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 17:05:07 +0100 Received: from cst.ljo.dec.com by mail13.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) id KAA00867; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:45:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cst.ljo.dec.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBEC07.8AF07040@cst.ljo.dec.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:46:22 -0500 Message-ID: From: James Isaak To: "'a WG15'" Subject: FW: (SC22.1072) SC22 N2334; CEN Cultural Registry role of WG15? Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:46:20 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This comment to SC22 on the CEN cultural registry discusses appropriate roles for WG15 ... so we should be aware of this discussion, and help our SC22 counterparts to come to informed decisions. Thanks, jim ---------- From: TAKAYUKI-K_SATO@hpjpn.desk.hp.com[SMTP:TAKAYUKI-K_SATO@hpjpn.desk.hp.c om] Sent: Monday, December 16, 1996 7:48 PM To: sc22@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22.1072) SC22 N2334 Subject: comment on SC22 N2334 (request review and comment: CEN ENV 12005) Source: Takayuki K Sato -Japan Date: 1996-12-17 SC22 N2334 " Advance Review and Comments: CEN ENV 12005: Information Technology - Procedures for European Registration of Cultural Element" is distributed SC22 national body for review and comment prior for it's fast track through Danish national body. Let me express my concern on this plan before it is become serious enough issue. The procedure that "CEN prestandard come into JTC1 as fast track after it is adapted as national standard" is right process per Vienna agreement. There is no issue as a procedure. What I am concerning is where and who in SC22 review this. The N2334 cover sheet says that this is related with SC22 project 22.30.02.03 which is WG20 project. Also, title of ENV 12005 is xxxxxx of Cultural Element. Thus, it is giving an impression that the place for review might be the WG20 (internationalization). "Is this really a case?" is my question. Once I take a look at ENV 12005, What ever title says, it is surely POSIX locale registration method (take a look at first paragraph of the SCOPE, even introduction (2nd paragraph) or all of the contents of main text). If this is really POSIX-locale registration method, it might be the scope within WG15, not WG20. This is the first point I concern. WG20 project(s) is not POSIX internationalization (i18n), but much broader generic i18n to be utilized by any program languages including POSIX. POSIX i18n should be POSIX implementation of generic WG20 i18n standards, and POSIX i18n is still with WG15. The registration method is not exception of this scope separation. The mentiened project 22.30.02.03 is "Cultural convention specification method", not POSIX locale specification method, it is much generic and broader standards than standard for POSIX locale. Surely, the first Working Draft of 14652 (22.30.02.03) was, as a reality, POSIX locale specification method, however, this difference was pointed out in WG20 meeting and WG20 agreed to rewrite it to generic standard (even though those are up-ward compatible), and the rewriting is in progress. Therefore, those are look alike and related each other, but, those are not direct related standards. This is the second reason I am concerning. The proposed (plan) registration method is for POSIX locale, and the paired (to be) "specification method" has much generic scope. The registration method standard has no value unless having specification standard to register. For this registration standard, the POSIX locale specification method standard available? If yes, the registration standard may go to WG15. If not, then, do we need the registration standard now? If not, to resolve the issue, there are four choices in theory. 1. Review and evaluate ENV 12005 as POSIX locale registration method. If necessary, develop separated standard of POSIX locale specification method. 2. Transfer 22.30.02.03 project from WG20 to WG15, and change it to POSIX locale specification method standard (based on early WD 14652). 3. Convert ENV 12005 from POSIX locale registration method to generic cultural convention registration method standard. 4. Open new project of : "Generic cultural convention registration method standard". Because ENV 12005 is published CEN prestandard (and willbe in fast track),. it is not practical to take choice-3 of above unless opening new project. Also, choice-4 above is nothing to do with the review required in N2334. In conclusion, N2334 to be reviewed from POSIX view point by POSIX working group. This is not within WG20 scope unless it is changed as "WG20 is in charge of POSIX i18n". By the way, SC22 plenary London resolved as "WG20 is contact point of CEN TC 304..". Even if fast track is take place as Danish national standard, it does have CEN string attached, it may come to the WG20, then the decision at the Wg20 should be to pass it to WG15 because of above reasons. I would recommend all national body to review above project management points very carefully as well as technical contents of the N2334 (ENV12005) . -----end-----