From A.M.Mumford@lut.ac.uk Wed Aug 31 16:35:43 1994 Received: from mailhost.lut.ac.uk (bgate.lut.ac.uk) by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA21459 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Wed, 31 Aug 1994 16:35:43 +0200 Received: by hpc.lut.ac.uk (15.11/SMI-4.1) id AA16116; Wed, 31 Aug 94 15:28:21 bst Message-Id: <9408311428.AA16116@hpc.lut.ac.uk> From: AMMumford Subject: CGM Am 2 To: SC24@dkuug.dk, mcbroome@csn.org, 71302.417@CompuServe.Com, lsr@ecf.ncsl.nist.gov, ansi@niwot.scd.ucar.edu, andre.ducrot@inria.fr, a.m.mumford@lut.ac.uk, A.H.FRANCIS@open.ac.uk, hattori@sysrap.cs.fujitsu.co.jp, moeller@fokus.gmd.de, ertl@mff.uniba.cs, egloff@deteberkom.detecon.d400.de, inagaki@ridge.ntt.jp Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 15:28:20 BST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0 (LUT)] X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 To: WG6/CGM Rapporteur Group, SC24 From: Anne Mumford, CGM Rapporteur The text below contains the draft responses and instructions to the editor for CGM DAm 2 ballot. All comments except those from Austria were addressed at the Bordeaux meting. Those from Austria have been discussed by the CGM Rapporteur Group and the conclusions are given below. Please let me have any issues by 16 September. Following that date (when I will consider the "Bordeaux meeting" to be closed, I will produce a paper version of these comments for circulation and sending to ISO. The editor (John Gebhardt) can then produce the final text for sending to ISO. Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-1/DAM 2 ****************************************************************** Comments from Austria _____________________ The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is proposed. Editorial comments acepted, editor to make the changes requested to table 8 (change "structure" to "application structure") and 5.4.20, describe the meaning of the word "increment". Comments from France ____________________ page 3 comment - editorial comment accepted page 14 comment - accepted, replace shall with may page 17 comment - editorial comment accepted page 18 comment - accepted, remove the sentence Annex I comment - comment noted but the proposed solution was developed to result in the editing instruction: change "location precision enumerated" on page 23 to being the same as in Clause 5, "location data type" Comments from Germany _____________________ T1 The comment was accepted. The solution is to create a new paragraph 4.13.6 entitled "Segments in APS" to indicate: - segments may be defined in APS - APS may not be defined in segments - a copy segment relating to a local segment shall not permitted in context independent APS page 96/7 covers the issues and the above description will clarify the situation. All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from UK ________________ All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from USA _________________ T-1.1 The proposed change in the DAm text, p3 parag 5 is to be deleted T-1.2 Comment accepted, editor to make proposed change T-1.3 Comment accepted, a registration prooposal is to be submitted T-1.4 Comment accepted, editor to make a change to p15, para 1, 5.2.18 to say "in the scope of the metafile" T-1.5 Comment accepted, editor to remove "missing or" from 5.3.23, 3rd line from bottom T-1.6 Comment accepted, editor to edit the penultimate sentence in 5.3.24 to indicate that if an APS is present then a non-zero address must be given, zero indicates there are no occurrence of APSs T-1.7 proposed change involves no technical change and accepted on that basis as editorial T-1.8 accept, delete the rule T-1.9 accepted, delete Model Profile description T-1.10 moot, as section deleted T-1.11 accepted, editor to make the proposed change T-1.12 comment accepted, editor to also make the following changes: page 22, change "add Annex J" to be "add Annex I" page 23, change "C.3.10" to "I.3.10" add the instruction to copy all annex C to annex I and then make the changes change the contents to reflect this All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Some informal comments received at the meeting from Japan were also accepted as resulting in editorial improvements to the document. Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-2/DAM 2 ****************************************************************** Comments from Austria _____________________ The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is proposed. Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this addition. Comments from France ____________________ Comment withdrawn at the meeting Comments from Germany _____________________ Editorial comment accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from UK ________________ All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from USA _________________ All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-3/DAM 2 ******************************************************************* Comments from Austria _____________________ The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot. The features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the comments made. The comments are therefore rejected and no change is proposed. Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this addition. Comments from Germany _____________________ All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from UK ________________ All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from USA _________________ All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Response Document and Editing Instructions for the Draft Amendment Ballot Comments Received on ISO/IEC 8632-4/DAM 2 ******************************************************************* Comments from Austria _____________________ The comments received are correct but reflect the work agreed by SC24 and ISO in previous commenting rounds and on the PDAm ballot regarding the use of application structures. The features have not changed since the working draft in regard to the comments made. The comments relating to this point are therefore rejected and no change is proposed. In regard to the comment on the inter-translatability, this point is accepted and the editor is requested to add the following note: "editing of clear-text encoded version 4 metafiles requires a special editor updating any positional changes of directory entries during editing" Editorial comment to explain the word "increment" relating to the Application Structure Directory is accepted, editor to make this addition. Comments from France ____________________ Comments withdrawn at the meeting Comments from Germany _____________________ Editorial comment accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from UK ________________ All editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described. Comments from USA _________________ All technical and editorial comments accepted, editor to make the changes described.