Home > Archive > Cobol > December 2007 > ANSI '02 Standard - reaffirmation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
ANSI '02 Standard - reaffirmation
|
|
| William M. Klein 2007-12-17, 6:56 pm |
| to CLC:
If anyone on this list CARES, J4 has scheduled an action to "reaffirm" the ANSI
(not ISO) 2002 COBOL Standard. If you have comments (pro or con) on this, then
you should send them to the J4 chair ASAP. His email ID is:
bobkarlin <at> karlinskorner.com
This topic is scheduled for a J4 teleconference to be held on Jan 17. See:
http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0004.doc
The interesting thing about that is that J4 meetings are ALWAYS open to anyone
interested in them. Therefore, if anyone on this list were interested, you
could actually participate during the discussion (as well as submit comments on
it). See that document for information on how to join. (I think the PDT rather
than PST is a "typo" - but you can email the chair or meeting host to find out
for certain).
It should be noted that the US has already voted to reaffirm the ISO 2002
Standard, so I *personally* would guess that J4 will recommend reaffirmation of
the ANSI one. However, they DO take into consideration "user input" - so please
participate IF this is important to you (either way).
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-12-17, 6:56 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:97C9j.199345$_H4.150880@fe08.news.easynews.com...
> to CLC:
>
> If anyone on this list CARES, J4 has scheduled an action to "reaffirm" the
> ANSI (not ISO) 2002 COBOL Standard. If you have comments (pro or con) on
> this, then you should send them to the J4 chair ASAP. His email ID is:
> bobkarlin <at> karlinskorner.com
>
> This topic is scheduled for a J4 teleconference to be held on Jan 17.
> See:
> http://www.cobolstandard.info/j4/files/08-0004.doc
>
> The interesting thing about that is that J4 meetings are ALWAYS open to
> anyone interested in them. Therefore, if anyone on this list were
> interested, you could actually participate during the discussion (as well
> as submit comments on it). See that document for information on how to
> join. (I think the PDT rather than PST is a "typo" - but you can email
> the chair or meeting host to find out for certain).
>
> It should be noted that the US has already voted to reaffirm the ISO 2002
> Standard, so I *personally* would guess that J4 will recommend
> reaffirmation of the ANSI one. However, they DO take into consideration
> "user input" - so please participate IF this is important to you (either
> way).
>
So, quickly, in non-joined-up writing, what are the main differences between
the ISO 2002 and ANSI 2002 standards, and why should we care, Bill?
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| William M. Klein 2007-12-17, 6:56 pm |
| There are ZERO differences (that I know of) between the ANSI and ISO '02
Standards.
To the extent that anyone "should care," voting NO against the ANSI
reaffirmation would make more visible (maybe) discontent with the ANSI COBOL
standardization process.
Voting "yes" would seem to be to be positive feedback on the "status quo"
YMMV !!!
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5soeksF19gi4dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:97C9j.199345$_H4.150880@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
> So, quickly, in non-joined-up writing, what are the main differences between
> the ISO 2002 and ANSI 2002 standards, and why should we care, Bill?
>
> Pete.
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-12-17, 9:56 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aKD9j.147982$ys5.60137@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> There are ZERO differences (that I know of) between the ANSI and ISO '02
> Standards.
>
OK, thanks.
> To the extent that anyone "should care," voting NO against the ANSI
> reaffirmation would make more visible (maybe) discontent with the ANSI
> COBOL standardization process.
>
> Voting "yes" would seem to be to be positive feedback on the "status quo"
>
> YMMV !!!
So my abstention can be taken as disillusion with both bodies, right :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
|
|
|
|