Subject: recent uk ballot texts

From: "C.Cartledge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 10:43:08 +0200

------------------------------ Message Separator ------------------------------
To: [email-masked] (IST/31)
cc: [email-masked], Chris Cartledge <[email-masked]>
Subject: Vote on CD 9973
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 15:01:13 +0100
From: [email-masked]

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: [email-masked] (IST/31)
cc: Chris Cartledge <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Vote on registration proposals 102-111
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 92 15:04:11 +0100
From: [email-masked]

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.