From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Jun 30 13:38:55 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 36B2DC178E5; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:38:55 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1759 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:38:54 CEST Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com (mail-pw0-f47.google.com [209.85.160.47]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BEFC178DA for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:38:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so241447pwi.34 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:38:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.125.21 with SMTP id x21mr7502930wfc.263.1277896165918; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [210.235.128.143] ([210.235.128.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c15sm5842599rvi.11.2010.06.30.04.09.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C2B25D0.8070507@edogawa-u.ac.jp> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:09:04 +0900 From: TAKATA Masayuki Organization: Edogawa University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; ja; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: Re: [2205jp 2911] (SC22WG5.4279) (j3.2006) Systematic reviews of Part 3 and the TR on enhanced modules References: <20100628173612.00A19C178E5@www2.open-std.org> <4C28E8D7.2040409@cray.com> <20100629091456.61B3AC178DA@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100629091456.61B3AC178DA@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk John, Bill, and WG5, The reason for Japanese "Confirm" vote for the TR is that Japanese versions of standards are used in Japan, and we need the TR longer than its lifetime in the world of ISO/IEC. Japanese F2003 was just published in November, 2009, and Japanese F2008 needs some more time to appear. There is no plan for a Japanese version of the TR, but it is small enough to be easily dealt with, as it is. Does the TR give you any harm? It might refer to ISO/IEC 1539-1 without year indication. Literally, it means F2008, after it's published. Would you mind that? I wouldn't. Such contradiction happens everywhere, and the intent is always clear, when you compare the publication dates. So, please let it be a little longer, as the SC22 votes indicated. As for Coco, there was no strong opinion, and there was no reason to shorten the lifetime of the Japanese version, for which we spent time to translate. Personally, I wouldn't disagree with John's suggestion on Coco. Regards, Makki On 2010/06/29 18:14, John Reid wrote: > Bill Long wrote: >> >> >> John Reid wrote: >>> WG5, >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Confirming the submodule TR just in time for it to become irrelevant. >> >> Is there any mechanism for including a statement of support by the WG >> or development body for a particular position when this voting occurs? >> I suspect many of the 'confirm' votes were inertial. If the argument >> had been made that the facility is included in the Fortran 2008 >> standard, and that a separate description of the facility was, at >> best, a distraction, the vote might have been different. > > I will raise this when I report to SC22 in the autumn. For the TR, I > think we should wait until F2008 is formally published and then I will > request that the TR be withdrawn. For Part 3, after a decent interval > which I will agree with SC22, I will request that this be withdrawn. An > explicit request for withdrawal is different from a vote for renewal. > >>> 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? >>> >> >> Added OS: The TextEdit application that comes with the Mac OS can >> display the .rtf files. The content of the files is certainly >> interesting, so I vote to put them up. > > Badly worded question on my part - I am definitely going to put them up. > My question is whether people are content with putting them up in rtf. > Having had an objection, I have asked the SC22 secretary if she can send > me pdf instead. > > Cheers, > > John.