From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Fri Sep 12 17:25:53 2014
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 8035D3586E3; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:25:53 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33081357279
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:25:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:60924)
	by ppsw-52.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1XSSjN-0003xo-Dk (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:25:49 +0100
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1XSSjN-0001zz-56 (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:25:49 +0100
Received: from [84.93.77.244] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 12 Sep 2014 16:25:49 +0100
Date: 12 Sep 2014 16:25:49 +0100
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: Ballot on draft TS
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1409121625490.7128@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Prayer.1.3.5.1409121536510.28255@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20140822142737.F18823571C4@www.open-std.org>
 <Prayer.1.3.5.1409121536510.28255@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Sorry - I realise that I had omitted something.  This is a minor change
to my vote.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Please answer the following question "Is N2027 ready for forwarding to
SC22 as the DTS?" in one of these ways.

1) Yes.
2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
3) No, for the following reasons.
4) Abstain.

No.

There is still too much substantive discussion of and uncertainty
about the required semantics, and associated details, including
comments on previous drafts that have not been addressed.

The image failure feature is something which has never been standardised
successfully in any programming language or portable library.

Many of the examples (specifically those using EVENT_QUERY, but also
some of those using the atomic subroutines) depend on semantics that
are not derivable from the normative text.

That might be acceptable for a free-standing TS, but the current plan is
that this TS is due to be integrated into the standard without waiting
for user experience.

There may also be problems of detail, but I have not had time to check
for them.

