From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Tue Jun 29 02:21:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id CD6ADC3BA06; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:21:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 493 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:21:44 CEST Received: from outbound003.roc2.bluetie.com (outbound003.roc2.bluetie.com [208.89.132.143]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8E3C178E5 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:21:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from emta001.roc2.bluetie.com ([10.200.2.131]) by outbound003.roc2.bluetie.com with bizsmtp id bcDV1e0032pbusy01cDVpp; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:13:29 -0400 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=LiOV/DtCWHybBnYevtzvx5ZkB+Q71LjLESTJDK7UyLg= c=1 sm=1 a=CiyAUjNUp1QA:10 a=ygRHs6EKU7oA:10 a=zSG1Zqi4ttIA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=1jxxgklbbqMR3f992LhP9A==:17 a=qLDLSEsXAAAA:8 a=jU4qhlNgAAAA:8 a=gRI9pqFrAAAA:8 a=g9ZImQDZQ-5vT4F2Ff0A:9 a=5IWVciL4oBaoUNauYsmOj-SGyGEA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=KWdds70sNqQA:10 a=_2WulyrnHL4A:10 a=4eVeHcJWXB8A:10 a=eam8sWw8tQgA:10 a=XPRQEuVWRVsA:10 a=tHOXRhVZKo1kB5WO:21 a=tyEt6aGQpB8AEhLx:21 a=rANQrBm0nlgJGMq7J4Ei9A==:117 X-CMAE-Score: 0.00 Received: from Telcontar (CPE-75-86-190-39.wi.res.rr.com [75.86.190.39]) (Authenticated sender: craig@ctdedo.com) by emta001.roc2.bluetie.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7C693013C for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:13:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Craig Dedo" To: "WG5 Mailing List" References: <20100628173612.00A19C178E5@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100628173612.00A19C178E5@www2.open-std.org> Subject: RE: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4276) Systematic reviews of Part 3 and the TR on enhanced modules Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:13:21 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcsW6ME2VGczW8pPRHKDlKYwbueIrAAMu4rA Content-Language: en-us Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk John and Everyone Else: I'm not that surprised that Part 3 got confirmed. There is no harm in = keeping it and it provide useful functionality at very low = implementation cost. It's unfortunate that the C-like pre-processors = are so deeply embedded in the psyche of the user community that Coco = never caught on. As for document formats, the tradition of PL22.5 (aka J3) has been that = the choice of document formats is completely within the freedom of the = submitter. This may even be rule, not just tradition. There are only = two restrictions that I know of. 1. You must submit documents in one of the required formats. I = believe that the current list includes plain ASCII text, PostScript, and = PDF. My recollection may not be up to date, so please update this list = if I am mistaken. 2. Do not submit in a format that contains malware. This tradition or rule does have real force. I had some personal = experience with it toward the end of my voting membership on J3. I was = about to submit some documents for the upcoming meeting and one of the = members (I don't remember who) told me to submit the documents only in = plain ASCII text, in the manner of a direct order to a subordinate. He = said, "You should submit them only in plain ASCII text. We don't need = them in any other format." I told him that the rules protected my = freedom to submit the documents in whatever format I chose as long as I = abided by the two rules I mentioned above. He backed down. FWIW, I have always submitted my documents in WordPerfect, PostScript, = and plain ASCII text. I offered to submit my papers in MS Word and PDF, = but various J3 members told me that was unnecessary. Sincerely, Craig T. Dedo 17130 W. Burleigh Place P. O. Box 423 Mobile Phone: (414) 412-5869 Brookfield, WI 53008-0423 E-mail: USA Linked-In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigdedo > -----Original Message----- > From: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org] On = Behalf Of > John Reid > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 12:36 > To: WG5 > Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4276) Systematic reviews of Part 3 and the = TR on > enhanced modules >=20 > WG5, >=20 > Here are the results of the two systematic reviews that have just = completed. > They have both been confirmed (7-2-23 for Part 3 and 9-1-22 for the = TR). The > surprise for me was re Part 3, but keeping it a bit longer seems = harmless. >=20 > Two of the files are rtf, which I do not normally put on the web site, = but I can > read them easily under Linux with Open Office. Is anyone unhappy with = putting these > two up? >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > John. >=20