Subject: (SC22WG15.1338) POSIX.2b reballot

At the IEEE level the POSIX.2b standard is being reballoted. At the international level, there has been a PDAM ballot, and a lengthy disposition of comments (WG15 N754).

As you know, there is discussion on undertaking a total revision of POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 in conjunction with The Open Group, replacing a substantial part of the TOG Single Unix Spec with a revised 9945.

Before this project is complete, we wish to get the existing amendments .1a and .2b done, so that they can form part of the basis for this new revision. At the IEEE level, this is a reballot, so we **could** technically ignore all the previous IEEE ballot comments and objections. We have decided that this would be at best foolhardy in trying to get out a finished document by the end of 1999.

To this end, we are currently going through all the IEEE ballots from the last round (3 years ago) to try and move the document forward. Some of these ballot comments explictly ask for the removal of text that was placed in there in the first place at International suggestion.

In particular, attached is the text we have at present for modifying the "date" command. The objection against this paragraph is also attached. I am soliciting International comment on whether removing the changes to date would invite subsequent negative ballots from SC22. This is a purely informative question; you will not be bound to sticking to this "vote" when the next international ballot occurs (another PDAM ballot, probably before March). I don't know where exactly the original proposal came from, merely that it was an international submission (possibly Japan??).

If I hear nothing, the changes proposed to 9945-2 will NOT be made, and this ballot objection will be resolved AFFIRMATIVELY (i.e. we will do what the objector asked).

--
Nick Stoughton
IEEE P1003.2b ballot coordinator
nick@usenix.org

@======================================================
@ Final= Objection, Original= Objection, TR= sas, BG= 003-14
@ Resolution= Accepted Rejected Accepted[Modified]
@------------------------------------------------------
@003 4/15 o 14
14 Sect 4.15.4 OBJECTION. page 44-46 line 615-719.

Problem:

The addition of flags, widths and precisions to the date formatting descriptors is invention and beyond the scope of this amendment.

For all practical purposes, this change would require the entire same capability to be added to the strftime() function--a feature that has been rejected by standards bodies multiple times--or to have date completely reimplement the existing strftime() capability.

There is simply no pressing need for this feature. It can be matched in a straightforward manner by a combination of the existing date and printf utilities! [It is even easier to do this in the shell than it is in C since lengths of strings is not an issue, and the above argument is sufficient to keep from adding this unnecessary baggage to the existing strftime() function.]

Action:

Delete this whole new set of capabilities, but don't cut out the only true fixup to date: the missing %EX.
------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION:

Attachment Converted: date.pdf