home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson)
-
- USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee
- Stephen R. Walli <stephe@usenix.org>, Report Editor
- Report on 1003.0: POSIX Guide
-
- Kevin Lewis, <klewis@gucci.enet.dec.com> reports on the
- April 15-19, 1991 meeting in Chicago, IL:
-
- Summary
-
- POSIX.0, more familiarly referred to as `the Guide' is best summed up
- the first sentence of Draft 11. ``This guide identifies parameters for
- an open system environment using the POSIX operating
- system/application interface as the platform''.
-
- The working group spent the week reviewing the document, addressing
- omissions and readability issues. Careful attention was paid to the
- guide's readiness for mock ballot (Oct. eventual submission to ISO as
- a technical report.
-
- Report
-
- Believe it or not, this group made its best forward progress by
- reviewing the guide document backwards. I'm still trying to figure
- out what this says about our group. [ed - And so are we all!] This
- forced us to deal with issues that were latent because we simply had
- not made it all the way to the end of the document before. On the
- occasions we did, we were too exhausted to do anything substantive.
- There were times during the review when I felt we were writing a very
- succinct and precise ``ballad''. Other times we seemed to be writing
- the sequel to ``War & Peace.'' Overall we made significant progress.
- Many key issues were addressed in Chicago.
-
- First was the errant and unintentional (I think) omission of the
- balloting P1003.2 (Shell and Utilities) standard from the guide. Wendy
- Rauch agreed to draft a write-up on how this standard fits into the
- context of the guide for its next release.
-
- Another issue was that of how to address character-based terminals in
- the user interface section. Pertinent contributions are being written
- for inclusion in the next draft.
-
- The use of the guide as an ISO Technical Report was also discussed
- this week. Factors affecting this are the guide's readiness and
- whether or not this readiness coincides with an acceptable time frame
- for ISO. There is a document synchronization plan between the IEEE
- and ISO, which will allow POSIX documents to be published concurrently
- as both ISO and IEEE standards. POSIX.0 plans to use a mock ballot as
- a way to judge its readiness. The group agreed that this ballot could
- not commence before the October '91 meeting. The group may, however,
- submit the guide to ISO prior to the completion of the mock ballot.
-
- As you might imagine, the decision to submit the guide to ISO is very
- subjective and discussion of this will probably eat up considerable
- time at the October meeting. (This reminds me. I better get Mr.
- Isaak to provide me with a large gavel).
-
- Lastly, POSIX.0 strongly focused its attention on the overall
- readability of the guide in such a manner that I felt we were finally
- able to see the proverbial ``forest for the trees.'' This will be the
- primary focus in the July meeting, strongly coupled with a review of
- those sections that should be either dropped (e.g. the graphics
- section) or postponed (e.g. the languages section) until after the mock
- ballot. (The languages section is likely to be postponed due to lack
- of help and not because it is any less significant.)
-
- In summary, POSIX.0 is on track, heading in the right direction, BUT
- with some medium-to-high hurdles remaining.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 96
-
-