| William M. Klein 2006-05-23, 9:55 pm |
| "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:e504kq$31bq$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
<much snippage>
> Again, I've said repeatedly I think there is value in a standard even if it is
> simply to provide guidelines for implementors as to how a consortium of
> interested parties think a given feature should be handled.
>
Chuck,
If my memory serves me correctly, you became invovled with J4 (or X3J4)
*after* the merger with CCC (CODASYL COBOL Committee). If so, then this may be
an unfair question.
It seems to me that (as I see the current situation - and your comment above),
that you see the "value" in the Standard ('02 or later) being that of what the
JOD (Journal of Development) *used* to be. In fact, some features WERE
implemented by vendors based on the JOD - and some got "changed" by the time
they got into the '85 ANSI or '02 ISO Standard. On the other hand, some
features, did become "medium common" extensions (never in the Standard) based on
JOD inclussion.
Do you see the PRIMARY role of the current Standard and development of the next
Standard as such - or if not, how do you distinguish their roles?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
|