ANSI/ISO TR (technical reports) for COBOL - XML & (OO) Collection classses

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 2n
d
and 3rd TRs (Technical Reports) to "expand"  the ISO 2002 COBOL Standard.  B
oth
of these reports (similar but not quite the same as previous "Amendments") w
ill
be processed by ISO via "national body" comments.

If you are in the US (or deal with the US via COBOL activities) it is import
ant
that you get your comments on these drafts to J4
 

so that J4 can process them at their meeting starting April 4 when determini
ng
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 discuss
ed
(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 whateve
r
they want)

1) Do *not* include comments on the "whole standards process" when talking a
bout
a specific TR

2) Do not spend much time on what else (in addition) you think should be add
ed
(outside the "scope" of the current documents) *UNLESS* you think that missi
ng
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 T
R
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 feature
s,
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 J
4
is (IMHO) just plain silly (and a waste of time).  If you have an opinion, t
hen
let J4 know !!!

NOTE2:
If you are NOT in the US or your COBOL is not US-based, then you should (als
o
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...CODE=1
0

(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