From CS1CJC@pa.shef.ac.uk Tue Sep 22 09:54:43 1992 Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA19538; Tue, 22 Sep 92 09:54:43 +0200 X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/; Relayed; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 09:54:18 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 09:54:28 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 10:43:08 +0200 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 10:43:08 +0200 X400-Originator: CS1CJC@PRIMEA.SHEFFIELD.ac.uk X400-Recipients: sc24@DKUUG.dk X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;mhs-relay..451:22.08.92.07.54.28] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: recent uk bal... From: "C.Cartledge" Message-Id: <"1454 Tue Sep 22 08:54:32 1992"@mhs-relay.ac.uk> To: sc24 Subject: recent uk ballot texts X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 ------------------------------ Message Separator ------------------------------ To: Jean_Stride_.9-071-603-2084@uk.ac.cam.cl.fax (IST/31) cc: Robin.Fairbairns@uk.ac.cam.cl, Chris Cartledge Subject: Vote on CD 9973 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 15:01:13 +0100 From: Robin.Fairbairns@uk.ac.cam.cl Jean - here is the vote for CD 9973, worded (as agreed at the IST/31 meeting) as a vote of approval. The UK approves CD 9973, while making the following comments: Technical comments: 1. The UK understands that there is an anticipated requirement for registration to support the IPI effort. However, the present text regularly refers to "computer graphic(s) standards developed by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24". The problem can be solved by referring simply to "standards developed by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24", since that covers present work on imaging as well as being proof against any future modifications of SC24's area of work. The problem occurs in: clause 0 (end para 4), and at the end of clause 3.6. (Note that the recommended form of reference is used in clause 3.3, bullet (b), sub-bullet (5).) 2. The `References' clause lists standards that refer to this standard. It should be a list of standards to which ISO/IEC 9973 makes normative reference, i.e., at most the language binding standards to which reference is made in Annex D, line -3 of first paragraph. 3. Clause 3.7 refers to clause 5.2. Clause 5.2 does not exist (see comments below about the structure of clause 5). 4. Clause 4.2, bullet (b), specifies that the Sponsoring Authority is required to coordinate multiple proposals. The UK considers that examples of such coordination would be of value. The UK proposes the following text to fulfill the requirement: Such coordination may cover (among others): 1) clearly identifying the relationships between sets of related ESCAPE identifiers; 2) specifying the need for relationships between the rendered sizes (or other appearance) of sets of marker types. 5. The UK is concerned about the requirement that an encoding or a language binding be provided for all registration proposals. In the case of proposals for items (e.g., types, styles, CGI constituency profiles), the UK believes that there is little value in proposing a binding of the proposed index. The requirement is specified in clause 4.2, bullet (c). 6. Clause 5 does not contain any text in explication of the diagrams labelled 5.1 and 5.2. The UK suspects that the diagrams are being used as clauses in their own right (which would explain the earlier reference to a clause 5.2). The UK considers that the figures should float from the point at which the procedure they illustrate is specified. Thus "diagram 5.1" should become "figure 1", floating from the end of clause 3.3, and introduced by the text: The procedures involved are illustrated in figure 1. at the end of clause 3.3. The procedure for deletions should also refer to the figure (with the same text) at the end of clause 3.4. "Diagram 5.2" illustrates a procedure that is nowhere else explained in the text. The UK proposes that clause 3.7 be replaced with text to cover explanation of the procedure, as follows: 3.7 Additional Classes of Graphical Items Classes of graphical items may be added to the register based on the following procedures: a) The functional standards developers conclude (in consultation with the group responsible for registration) that a new class of graphical item is needed. b) A proposal defining the proposed new class is circulated to all the Working Groups of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 for comment. c) The functional standard Working Group and the registration Working Group process any comments and forward the revised proposal to the secretariat of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 for approval or vote within the subcommittee. d) The secretariat forwards approved new classes to the registration authority, which updates the registration information pack (and distributes the details on request). The procedures involved are illustrated in figure 2. Annex C lists classes of graphical items identified at the time of preparation of this standard. If these changes are made, clause 5 should be deleted. 8. The Annexes do not specify whether they are informative or normative. The UK proposes that all should be specified as normative, except for Annex B, which is simply a set of examples. 9. Annex C incorrectly lists "Echo" and "Prompt" as classes identified. In fact, ISO 9636-5 : 1991 (CGI input and echoing) identifies "Echo Type" and "Prompt Type". Editorial comments: 1. Clause 0, paragraph 4, and clause 1, paragraph 1 both refer to "This Technical Report" - should be "This Standard". 2. Clause 3.1 gives a domestic address (i.e., one valid within the USA) for NIST. The full address and international telephone number should be given. 3. Annex D, paragraph 1, line -3, "... clause 2of this ..." omits space after "2". ------------------------------ Message Separator ------------------------------ To: Jean_Stride_.9-071-603-2084@uk.ac.cam.cl.fax (IST/31) cc: Chris Cartledge , Robin.Fairbairns@uk.ac.cam.cl Subject: Vote on registration proposals 102-111 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 15:04:11 +0100 From: Robin.Fairbairns@uk.ac.cam.cl I can't produce any reason not to vote with approval on this lot (I've consulted with Mike, and emailed Bob Hopgood). Here's a footling comment: The UK approves registration items 102 to 111 inclusive, with the following comment: The `description' of each of items 102 to 104 lists default values for variables in the PHIGS state list extension. There are four variables listed, but the three integer variables have no meaning in case that the "Watched range enable flag" is set to OFF (i.e., default). Since it is impossible to set the integer variables without resetting the "Watched range enable flag", there is no need to specify their default values.