From ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Mon Jan 5 17:10:21 1998 Received: from mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org (mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA08079 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 17:10:19 +0100 Received: by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org; id AA13603; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:11:35 GMT Message-Id: <9801051611.AA13603@mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org> Received: from mailhome [192.153.166.5] by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org via smtpd ; Mon Jan 05 16:11 GMT 1998 Received: by mailhome.rdg.opengroup.org (1.36.108.10/16.2) id AA24041; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:01:36 GMT From: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:01:36 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Seeds, Glen"'s message as of Jan 5, 9:50am. Reply-To: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.1177) RE: (wg15tag 1867) re: WG15 Ad hoc Meeting - Janu ary 11-12, 1998 On Jan 5, 9:50am in "(SC22WG15.1177) RE: ", "Seeds, Glen" wrote: > For what it's worth, this proposal makes me somewhat nervous. You seem > to have done a reasonable job of specifying what's in the base standard > and what isn't. Still, I find the prospect of future divergence as a > result of a split disturbing, and all too probable. Tracking the defect reports its clear that each amendment introduces inconsistencies and divergences ( look at the differences in ENOSYS handling between .1b and .1c ) - and sometimes errors (look at the return value from opendir() in POSIX.1-1996). I'd say its better to have a solid base document actively maintained, and to have other documents developed which are able to stand alone. For example we might see a new POSIX-RT (realtime) standard with a separate designation (say POSIX 1401.1), to complement the base standard. Andrew ----- Andrew Josey PASC Functional Chair Interpretations The Open Group Apex Plaza,Forbury Road, Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110 Email: a.josey@opengroup.org