From ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Wed Jul 26 14:02:51 2000 Received: from mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org (mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA09867 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:02:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org) Received: by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org; id AA02085; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:10:23 GMT Received: from skye.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.247] by smtp.opengroup.org via smtpd V1.38 (00/07/25 13:18:13) for ; Wed Jul 26 13:10 BST 2000 Received: (from ajosey@localhost) by skye.rdg.opengroup.org (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA01158; Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:02:41 +0100 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:02:41 +0100 From: Andrew Josey Message-Id: <1000726120241.ZM1157@skye.rdg.opengroup.org> In-Reply-To: claudia.lohmann@pdb.siemens.de's message as of Oct 29, 1:17am. References: <199810290717.BAA08569@spm.themacs.com> Reply-To: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: claudia.lohmann@pdb.siemens.de Subject: Re: PASC Interpretations Request Finalised PASC 1003.1 Interpretation # Cc: stds-pasc-ieee-officers@ieee.org, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Claudia Lohmann From: Andrew Josey, PASC Interpretations Functional Chair Reference: PASC 1003.1 #94 Dear Claudia Subject: IEEE Standard 1003.1 Enclosed is the official response for your request for an interpretation of IEEE Standard 1003.1. This response was developed and approved by the members of the 1003.1 Interpretations Committee. To obtain an understanding of the PASC Guidelines for interpretations and their classifications please read http://www.pasc.org/interps/ Please can you confirm receipt of this electronic mail message within ten working days, please carbon copy your response to the IEEE (stds-pasc-ieee-officers@ieee.org) Sincerely, Andrew Josey PASC Functional Chair Interpretations Enclosures Cc: IEEE PASC Officers, SC22 WG15 _____________________________________________________________________________ Notice: This is an unapproved draft PASC interpretation. Use at your own risk. Please direct any questions to a.josey@pasc.org _____________________________________________________________________________ PASC Interpretation reference 1003.1-96 #94 _____________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation Number: XXXX Topic: character classes for Euro Relevant Sections: not specified PASC Interpretation Request: ---------------------------- From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: 1998 Oct 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard or DIS final text, if applicable): System Interface Standard:IEEE Std 1003.1-1990 (ISO 9945-1:1990) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required): 3 Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table numbers): ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived problem): On behalf of an internal customer I have the following question on implementing (?) the EURO: What is the answer (true/false) for the following POSIX requests: - is_alpha, is_lower, is_upper (supposition: false; if not an answer is needed to the question what is the deliverable of to_lower/to_upper) - is_punct (supposition: true, as for the dollar it is also true) - is_cntrl (supposition: false) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional): none ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interpretation Response: ----------------------- IEEE Std 1003.1 (a.k.a. 9945-1) does not define any additional behavior for the ctype functions above and beyond the requirements from ISO-C. Current ISO-C does not address the existence of the Euro character, and neither do the current character set standards, although revisions may be in progress to do so. At this time the Euro symbol must be treated as an implementation extension, until character set and language standards are able to catch up with the introduction of the new symbol. A POSIX.1 conforming implementation is required to provide these functions, but that is all. Rationale: It is expected that POSIX.1 itself will never address the issue of character classification beyond the current requiremts, although profiles (particularly National or Regional ones) might. Whether the Euro should be classified as a monetary symbol may depend on the specific locale; in those Eurpoean countries converting to the Euro, it may, but that may or may not apply in other countries. Forwarded to Interpretations group: 2 Nov 1998 Proposed resolution: 17 Feb 1999 Finalised Interpretation: 25 July 2000