| William M. Klein 2005-02-16, 3:55 am |
| To: comp.lang.cobol
IBM-MAIN
lngc distribution list
Tek-Tips COBOL forum
etc
J4 and WG4 (the ANSI and ISO-ish) COBOL groups are progressing with their 2nd
and 3rd TRs (Technical Reports) to "expand" the ISO 2002 COBOL Standard. Both
of these reports (similar but not quite the same as previous "Amendments") will
be processed by ISO via "national body" comments.
If you are in the US (or deal with the US via COBOL activities) it is important
that you get your comments on these drafts to J4
[color=darkred]
so that J4 can process them at their meeting starting April 4 when determining
the US position on the drafts.
Please send your comments to the J4 chair at:
Don.Schricker <at > microfocus.com
The (OO) "Collections Classes" document has not yet been posted (after its
revision at their most recent meeting). However, you can check for it
(occasionally) at:
http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/index.asp?bhcp=1
and I will try and update "you all" when it does get posted.
The XML (via native COBOL source code) document is currently available at:
http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/05-0027.doc
There is also an "historical" document showing what issues have been discussed
(and resolve) at:
http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/05-0028.doc
Unless you are into the "nitty-gritty" of how COBOL Standards work, I would
suggest that you START looking at the 0027 document by looking at (for) the
"CONCEPTS" section (with its example of how this syntax works).
***
A couple of suggestions (although everyone is welcomed to comment on whatever
they want)
1) Do *not* include comments on the "whole standards process" when talking about
a specific TR
2) Do not spend much time on what else (in addition) you think should be added
(outside the "scope" of the current documents) *UNLESS* you think that missing
some feature will make the entire feature "useless" (or un-implementable) - and
if you think this is the situation make a STRONG case for why the entire TR
should be delayed until the addition feature(s) are added. You *might* want to
include something that you think should be placed into the "candidate for a
future revision" if you think it might be missed otherwise, but don't spend a
lot of time on this.
3) Catching typos and "minor" wording glitches is DEFINITELY welcomed.
4) If you think that the entire approach of one of the TR's is wrong or that the
entire thing is "un-needed" then this is worth conveying to J4. However, as the
"international community" has already confirmed its desire for these features,
you need to provide a detailed explanation of what you think is wrong about what
is currently being done.
5) If you think that the document is "swell" and the best thing since sliced
bread - but don't have any specific comments, then this is also worth
communicating to J4 - so they get some idea of how many COBOL "users" think this
is "worth the effort".
NOTE WELL:
"gripping" in this forum (wherever you read this) and NOT communicating to J4
is (IMHO) just plain silly (and a waste of time). If you have an opinion, then
let J4 know !!!
NOTE2:
If you are NOT in the US or your COBOL is not US-based, then you should (also
if you want to) convey your input to your specific national standards body. For
a complete list, see:
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/aboutiso/i...y?MEMBERCODE=10
(So it doesn't get lost) You should reference the "TR" number (e.g.)
ISO/IEC TR 24716:200x(E)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
|