ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1742 Convener's report from SC22 meeting John Reid 1. Comments accompanying SC22 ballots There were problems with the CD ballot on Fortran 2008. Countries are required to submit comments using a WORD Commenting Template, with columns for 1. the country identifier, 2. the clause and subclause, 3. the paragraph, 4. an identifier for the type of comment, 5. the comment itself, 6. the proposed change to the CD, and 7. observations from the secretariat. Although in landscape mode, the important columns are very narrow, 75mm for 5. and 65mm for 6. This makes the format suitable only for short comments. It is intended that the secretary should merge all the comments and sort them by clause. For our CD ballot, see WG5 N1740, 1. the Canadian comments were all in column 5, without proper line flow; 2. the UK comments were better, but the short line length was unhelpful; much of the problem was avoided by deferring the detail to WG5 papers to appear later; 3. the German comments were minor and presented satisfactorily; and 4. the US did not use the template at all, so their comments appeared separately in a very unsatisfactory format. Just prior to the meeting, I asked Van Synder to make a summary of the US vote for WG5 to use at its next meeting, since I felt that it would be impossible to work from N1740. This summary is N1741. Other working groups were equally unhappy with the template. The secretary uses WORD and serves SC22 very well, so we were all keen to avoid making her task difficult. I therefore proposed that SC22 should follow the lead of the UK and present long comments in a separate document. The following resolution was unanimously approved. ................................................................... Resolution 08-05: National Body Use of ISO Commenting Template JTC 1/SC 22 notes that National Bodies have expressed concern that the ISO Commenting Template is too restrictive. For example, lengthy comments, comments that require more width or special formatting, such as code segments, are problematic. JTC 1/SC 22 therefore permits National Bodies submitting such comments in a CD or PDTR ballot to provide summaries for those comments in the ISO Commenting Template and the full details in a small number of separate documents, which are identified in the submitted template. JTC 1/SC 22 instructs its Secretary to publish these separate documents as JTC 1/SC 22 N-numbered Documents that are referenced in the summary of voting. Before final submission of the comments, National Bodies are encouraged to discuss with the JTC 1/SC 22 Secretary how best to present their comments. ................................................................... 2. Presentation by a senior ISO editor A whole morning was occupied by a presentation by Richard Cook of ISO Secretariat on the requirements for ISO standards and the way drafts are processed, with many interspersed questions and answers. The rules are laid out in the ISO/IEC directives, part 2 - "Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards". I noted the following 1. ISO prefers OED spelling, but consistent other spelling is OK. Thus our use of American spelling is OK. 2. We have not got the early clauses quite how they should be: 1 Scope 2 Normative references 3 Terms and definitions 3. An undated reference, such as ISO/IEC 10646-1, will be taken in the future to refer to the latest version and all its corrigenda. 4. A dated reference, such as ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000, refers to a specific version; this is needed for a reference to a specific clause or table. 5. The definitions of terms should be such that each definition is a possible replacement of the term in the text (I think we have this right, see 2.1 in N1723). 6. Some of the material in Clause 1 at present should perhaps be a clause or subclause on 'Symbols and abbreviated terms'. Richard said he was open to email consultation. The format of submitted documents was discussed with Richard. The following procedure was agreed with Keith Brannon of ISO at last year's meeting: 1. The project editor sends the approved format file (currently PDF) together with any additional source files necessary for ISO to note and verify changes. 2. ISO lists the changes it requires. 3. The project editor constructs a new approved format and source files and sends them. 4. Steps 2. and 3. are repeated until no changes are needed. Despite this, David Muxworthy was asked for a WORD version of Corrigendum 3. Being a nice person and because he can construct one easily, he did so. SC22 was assured by Richard Cook that there was no need for a WORD version and that the procedure suggested by SC22 was adequate. Other conveners reported having unwanted changes made to their text and felt very strongly that they wished to retain ownership of the document source. A convener urged me privately to withdraw the WORD version of Corrigendum 3, which I did. Although ISO have completed their 'evaluation' of the WORD version they have yet to tell me what changes are needed. 3. Archiving The following resolution re archiving was approved: ................................................................... JTC 1/SC 22 notes the importance of archiving JTC 1/SC 22 and Working Group documents and email discussions for the purpose of preserving the history of programming language standardization. Therefore, JTC 1/SC 22 requests its National Bodies and Working Groups to submit contributions to the 2009 Plenary on: . ways to accomplish the preservation of programming language standardization history, . ways to recover early records (especially paper), and . any national activities in this area. ................................................................... We certainly have a problem with our early documents, many of which are on paper only. If anyone has thoughts on this, please say. 4. Programming Language Vulnerabilities The OWG (Other Working Group) on Programming Language Vulnerabilities continues to be very active. It was decided to convert it to an ordinary working group with no change of convener or membership. It will be WG23. 5. WG5 convener I was appointed for a further 3-year term as WG5 convener.