From CS1CJC@pa.shef.ac.uk Mon Sep 28 13:04:44 1992
Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA11875; Mon, 28 Sep 92 13:04:44 +0100
X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/;
               Relayed; Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:03:57 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed;
               Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:45:53 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed;
               Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:42:08 +0100
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:42:08 +0100
X400-Originator: CS1CJC@PRIMEA.SHEFFIELD.ac.uk
X400-Recipients: sc24@DKUUG.dk
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;mhs-relay..835:28.08.92.11.45.53]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: CGI Abstract ...
From: "C.Cartledge" <CS1CJC@pa.shef.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <"4719 Mon Sep 28 12:46:43 1992"@mhs-relay.ac.uk>
To: sc24 <sc24@DKUUG.dk>
Subject: CGI Abstract Test Suite European Standard and International 
         Implications
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

   Chris Cartledge                       Tel: 0742 768555  Ext: 4274
   Academic Computing Services           Fax: 0742 753899
   University of Sheffield
   SHEFFIELD, UK, S10 2TN

Dear Colleagues,

The UK has grave misgivings about an item of European work in the SC24
area.  This is a CGI Abstract Test Suite (ref CTS2-CGI-115) which is
proceeding down the European route to standardization without any expert
input that we can see.  It was part of the output from an Esprit
project and gives a human readable description of tests to be programmed
for validation of CGI implementations.

The UK voted NO to this last time round but were the only Nation to do
so.  This NO vote was on at least three grounds:

a) It is not in the right form (full of 'should's) and needs thorough
technical review.

b) It should be going through ISO/IEC if anywhere since there is a
responsible international committee (SC24) and proceeding in Europe in
this way without the agreement of SC24 (or JTC1?) would appear to be in
breach of the Vienna agreement which is supposed to prevent damaging
overlap.

c) It has not been identified as a priority by SC24.

We are now at the final ballot stage (which closes after the SC24
meeting). Unless action is taken it will become a European standard and
may be fast-tracked into ISO/IEC. The UK would encourage European
Nations in particular and SC24 in general to consider such overlaps,
which are not unique to Europe, of course.

Many thanks for reading thus far.  Regards,

                  Chris