ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG15 (Posix) Meeting, Hamilton, New Zealand
				   May 1991


				Meeting Report


	0. Introduction:

	The Plenary ran from the 5th to the 8th of May 1992, preceded on
	the 3rd and 4th of May by a meeting  of the Internationalisation
	Rapporteur group (RIN).

	Twenty two delegates from the US, the UK, Canada, France, Japan,
	Germany, Denmark  and (for the first time)  from both  Italy and
	New Zealand  attended the  Plenary.   The agenda included fifty-
	five  action items  and  thirty-seven  papers for consideration;
	the Plenary scheduled itself to divide into three sub-groups for
	one day in order  to handle the work-load,  which was alloted as
	follows:

		.  Review and comment on 9945-1 extensions, bindings and
		   actions (1003.4, .6, .8, .12; PCTE relationship, LIS)
		   plus characteristics annex.

		.  Disposition of comments and actions on 9945-2 (1003.2
		   and 1003.2a).

		.  Administrative issues: NPs, planning, synchronisation,
		   Liaison,  Standing  document management  (resolutions,
		   issues, ...)


	1. Sub-Group 1:

	The  group  considering  the first  sub-division  had a  lengthy
	discussion on what  the LIS binding is intended to provide,  why
	it is a  relatively loose and  incomplete  specification and why
	calls and  structures may  be 'extended'  by implementors.  This
	discussion  was  of  particular  interest  to  the  New  Zealand
	delegates since their Modula-2 group is planning a Posix binding.
	They confirmed that Modula-2 can fit the procedural structure of
	the LIS,  but problems	were  foreseen	with  some  of the  data
	objects.  Modula-2 provides run-time range-checking on variables,
	and these are a particular problem where the LIS doesn't specify
	the  bounds of a  return value, eg.  The LIS deliberately avoids
	specifying these  as it wasn't possible  to conceive a mechanism
	which would work for a reasonable range of known languages.

	It was	suggested  that  the Modula-2  binding should follow the
	path described by the Ada binding:  it is acknowledged that this
	will make the Modula-2	binding thicker than it might  otherwise
	have been.

	The IEEE LIS ballot is projected to begin in early July 1992.


	2. Sub-Group 2:

	The group tasked with the second  sub-division looked at the ISO
	ballot	comments  on  9945-2  and  9945-2a,  together  with  the
	Editor's  proposed  resolutions.   All  were  accepted  with the
	exception of the resolution  proposed re the Danish objection to
	the sections in the  9945-2 draft  which specifically  allow for
	the substitution of the currency symbol for '$' and the UK Pound
	Sterling symbol for '#', where the underlying character-set (ISO
	646) already permits this:  (the Danish objection follows)

	   "10. Page 30 lines 397-400 , page 38 lines 649-653 $ and #
	    page 49 lines 1065-1073.

	    It should either not be allowed to use currency sign and
	    pound sign, or currency sign and pound sign should be
	    allowed as one of the characters in the portable character
	    set. The clauses as they stand are very character set
	    dependent (they talk about substitution of positions in
	    character sets!), and character set dependence should be
	    removed as much as possible from POSIX.  One thing the
	    current specification will mean, is that you cannot see
	    on a piece of paper or on other output media if a program
	    is valid or not, as it depends on the encoding.  Eg. a
	    shell script written with British 7-bit ISO 646 will be
	    valid with pound signs, while a completely equally-looking
	    script written in ISO 8859-1 will be non-conformant."

	A number  of possible  solutions  to this perceived problem were
	discussed.  Denmark agreed to a UK proposal that the sections be
	removed from the draft and Rationale  be added to note that such
	substitutions are permissible where the underlying character-set
	allows this.

	There was  a long discussion on  how best to progress the 9945-2
	standard:  Internationalisation issues could  severly affect the
	publication of the standard if it were to await  the development
	of 1003.2b, etc.

	The mood of the  meeting was to  progress 9945-2 as it currently
	is and to apply the internationalisation addenda as they emerge.


	3. Sub-Group 3:

	The  group  allocated to  (largely)  administrative  issues  had
	before	it twelve  papers.  It elected to  endorse a proposal to
	employ a  JTC-1-like  modus  operandi  for the	maintenance  and
	update of the WG15 Issues list.

	There  was  a  lengthy	discussion  on	the  proposed  Terms  of
	Reference  for	the  Rapporteur Group  for  the Co-ordination of
	Profile Activities (RGCPA).   A concern was raised regarding the
	authorizing  of RGCPA  to  provide  feedback  directly	to SGFS.
	Suggestions were made for several changes.   The group agreed to
	propose a resolution to Plenary which would approve the Terms of
	Reference  and	 Programme  of	Work  for  RGCPA  with	specific
	modifications.	The primary change eliminates the  delegation of
	authority  to  RGCPA to  interact  directly  with SGFS,  instead
	requiring it to report and refer through WG15 Plenary.


	4. Plenary:

	WG15 Plenary  produced	fifty-eight  action items, (ten of which
	will  require  the  attention	of   IST/5/-/15),   plus  twenty
	resolutions.


	5. UK Delegation:

	Unsurprisingly the UK  delegation  was	depleted by the distance
	and costs involved in travelling to New Zealand;  the delegation
	consisted of:

		David Cannon	(UK BSI IST/5/-/15 Convenor, PUKE)
						(University of Exeter)
		Martin Kirk	(IEEE 1003.7 Chair)
						(X/Open UK Ltd)


	Dave Cannon
	17-May-1992