From Miles.Ellis@educational-technology-resources-centre.oxford.ac.uk Tue May 16 10:20:48 1995 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA18942 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Tue, 16 May 1995 11:19:31 +0200 Received: from vax.ox.ac.uk by oxmail2.ox.ac.uk. with SMTP (PP) id <07418-0@oxmail2.ox.ac.uk.>; Tue, 16 May 1995 10:19:40 +0100 Received: from 163.1.85.1 by vax.ox.ac.uk (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Tue, 16 May 1995 10:19:07 +0100 X-Sender: MELLIS@vax.ox.ac.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 10:20:48 +0000 To: maine From: Miles.Ellis@educational-technology-resources-centre.oxford.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) Subject: Re: (x3j3.1995-215) CD editrivia Cc: sc22wg5 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Richard, You asked a number of questions about the form of the CD. I am still finding my way through the ISO system but, as the person who will actually have to submit the document (officially) here are my answers: > >I've never actually seen a formal CD that I can recall, so >a few trivial questions about editorial trivia for the CD... >(The term editrivia in the title is derived by parallelism >with administrivia, which these are closely related to). > >The title page and the page headers all currently use >X3J3-007 as the title. I'm planning to change that >to X3J3-007R1. Does it need to be something different >to reflect its status as a CD for a revision of ISO/IEC 1559 >or is the X3J3 internal title OK? The Title Page should not refer to any X3J3 numbers. It is now an ISO document. It should read as follows: Committee Draft 1.0 Proposed Revision of ISO/IEC 1539 : 1991 May 1995 Information Technology - Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces - Programming language Fortran > >Likewise, the title page and page headers all currently >include the phrase "working draft". I'm guessing that >this should properly be changed to "committee draft" >(which is what I assume CD stands for). Correct? Yes. And also change the X3J3 reference to ISO/IEC 1539-1 >The draft has change bars relative to 95-007. These >might be useful to X3J3 and WG5, but are unlikely to >mean anything to the general public. Indeed, I could >imagine someone incorrectly guessing that the change bars >showed changes relative to f90. Should I > > 1. Just leave the change bars as they are, > > 2. Leave them there but add an explanation somewhere, > > 3. Take them out, or > > 4. Prepare 2 versions, one with them in for internal use, > plus one with them out for the CD? > >I'm currently inclined towards option 1 as being the easiest >thing to do unless someone objects. The change bars should be removed. This document will be read by many people who have not seen any of the X3J3 drafts and will naturally assume that the change bars refer to the previous document (i.e. ISO/IEC 1539 : 1991). X3J3/WG5 internal documents are irrelevant at this stage. They caused considerable confusion in the last version, 95-007r0, to a number of WG5 members as they were not related to the actual Standard. (I know because they asked me about them!) Whether you also produce a version with change bars for internal use is for you to decide (;-) - I imagine that X3J3 would appreciate it. > >Any other simillar trivia that I don't know about? (It is safe >to assume that if anything else is needed to make it look like >a CD that I don't know about it). That will do for now. I will have to go through the directives in detail with you prior to the DIS stage, but it is not so critical at the CD stage. There is, however, one matter of considerable importance that you might like to think about. As you know, the last version, 95-007r0, was available in PostScript form on the servers formatted for US (i.e. non-standard ;-) paper. This caused problems for non-US people who wished to download and print it as it was necessary to edit the actual PostScript before it would print on many systems. Furthermore, I am told, the extra width of US paper meant that even when this was done, the printed text was so close to the margins that, I am informed, the line numbers were lost in the binding. The version that you supplied to me was copied by NAG for the distribution without any such problem, but when being printed I guess it may be slightly further to the left. It would be highly desirable, therefore, if the document could be reformatted so that it will print correctly on both A$ and US paper. This means that the length of the paper should be 11 inches and its width 210 mm, with appropriate margins from these notional paper dimensions. It would then be possible to produce two PostScript versions, one for the US and Canada and one for the rest of the world (A4). The final Standard will, of course, be printed on A4 paper, but there is a further complicating factor in that we are required to submit an electronic version as well. Frame is an acceptable format for a DIS, but it must be formatted for A4 paper, of course. We don't need to worry about this for the CD, but it will have to be dealt with by the time we produce the DIS after the November meetings (hopefully). Since the document will, presumably, not be changed until after the November meeting, perhaps you could have a dummy run between now and then? If you have any other queries, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer. Miles ======================================================================= Dr Miles Ellis CCCCCCCCCCC Director: Educational Technology Resources Centre C C University of Oxford, 37-41 Wellington Square C E Oxford OX1 2JF, ENGLAND C T C R Telephone: +44 1865 270528 Fax: +44 1865 270527 C C Email: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk CCCCCCCCCCC =======================================================================