From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Sep 13 13:16:07 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo@ghz.klid.dk Received: by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix, from userid 521) id B163037646; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:16:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by ghz.klid.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2F137638 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.48]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i8DBEOjH036668 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:14:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from d.muxworthy@tiscali.co.uk) Received: from dial-62-64-204-33.access.uk.tiscali.com ([62.64.204.33]:49604) by mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1C6o1Y-00052I-Rv for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:25:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040910154605.23C2D37646@ghz.klid.dk> References: <200409091804.i89I4Q2E029101@math.jpl.nasa.gov> <20040910154605.23C2D37646@ghz.klid.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: David Muxworthy From: David Muxworthy Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3160) Resolutions from SC22 plenary meeting Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:22:56 +0100 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Sep 10, 2004, at 16:28, Richard E Maine wrote: > Resolution 04-01 a bit puzzled me in its application to us, but I > guess we'll > see more after taking a look at N3784. ...It is hard for me to tell > exactly what they > want from the resolution alone; might turn out to be nothing from us. As Roger Scowen says in N3784, ISO/IEC 2382-15:1999 Information technology -- Vocabulary -- Part 15: Programming languages, and its previous incarnations, were produced independently of SC22. Roger is being diplomatic when he says, "The reaction [in SC22 to requests to review the CDs] was largely apathetic but with a small amount of disdain and derision". I seem to remember that in BSI they were treated with groans and laughter at some of the grossly misleading definitions. Nevertheless a standard for terminology was seen as having some value particularly for non-native English speakers. Roger seems to have done a huge amount of tedious clerical work in pulling together terms from 12 language standards and miscellaneous other documents. I suggest the best way to respond to the SC22 resolution is first to ask him exactly what information, and what level of detail, he would like on Fortran. David