Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:4344 comp.std.internat:795
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.std.internat
Subject: Re: Localization (4.4.2.1)
Message-ID: <15241@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 19 Feb 91 02:22:17 GMT
References: <ENAG.91Feb13234959@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> <1991Feb16.140510.22226@tsa.co.uk>
Followup-To: comp.std.c
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 57

In article <1991Feb16.140510.22226@tsa.co.uk> domo@ukc.ac.uk (Dominic Dunlop) writes:
>Well, yes.  It is fair to say that internationalization issues were
>introduced to both the X3J11 and the POSIX working groups rather late in
>the day, with the result that ANSI X3-159 (C) and ANSI/IEEE 1003.1
>(POSIX operating system interface) are rather light on
>internationalization-related content.  This lightness is likely to be
>redressed in two forthcoming standards, the X3J16 C++ work, and the
>POSIX 1003.2 standard (shell and utilities): the internationalization
>lobby was able to get at these projects sufficiently early in their
>development to ensure that internationalization issues are considered at
>every turn.  Well, most turns.  Well, a good proportion of turns.  It is
>also the case that the 1990 version of 1003.1 (which is the same thing
>as ISO 9945-1:1990) says a bit more about internationalization than the
>1988 edition, and that the next edition of the C standard will also pay
>more attention to the issue, thanks to much work by Japan and Nordic
>countries, among others.  (Sadly, ISO 9899:1990, the first edition of the
>international standard for C, has the same technical content as ANSI
>X3-159.)

I take strong exception to what Dominic has posted on this issue.
In fact, approval of the final C standard for ratification was delayed
for quite a long time due to the additional work by X3J11 necessary to
accommodate legitimate concerns for "internationalization" issues.
Coordination with various internationalization working groups was part
of this process.  So far as I am aware, the C standard was the first
major programming language standard to specifically address these
issues.  It is not "sad", but rather encouraging, that ISO 9899 adopted
the internationalization mechanisms (wide character and localization)
that had been jointly worked out for ANS X3.159.  It was recognized
that these mechanisms form the basis for extensions to better address
specific international localization concerns, and that it was neither
necessary nor desirable for X3.159 to attempt to further address these.
It is appropriate for WG14, however, and indeed work is in progress to
prepare normative addenda to ISO 9899 that may further address these
issues.  Note that the input from "Japan and Nordic countries" started
with participation in the preparation of the joint ANSI/ISO C standard,
contrary to the impression that one might get from Dominic's posting
that this input was missing during preparation of ANS X3.159-1989 and
IS 9899:1990.

I know that as an X3J11 member I personally spent a SIGNIFICANT amount
of my time working on these issues.  Any implication that they were
slighted therefore really annoys me.

>but what Norweigian company would want to spend money on the creation
>of an American standard?

X3.159 is certainly more than "an American standard", as is demonstrated
by the adoption of its technical content unchanged as the international
standard.  It was generally considered by the X3J11 membership that we
were working toward a SINGLE technical specification for C for EVERYONE.
There was active participation in X3J11 by many individuals from non-
American institutions, and during the public reviews of drafts of the
proposed standard we received considerable commentary from many nations.

P.S.  I am not speaking on behalf of X3J11 or ANSI here, although I tend
to think they would agree with me on this.