In article "Re: external inlines" <D4uMy2.BFr@ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
[..]
|>  I apologise that while I can refer the Working Paper,
|> you are stuck with the ARM. The ARM is not as up to date,
|> nor is Bjarne's explanation therein as precise as that of the
|> WP (otherwise it would be the WP :-)
|>
|>  Both are probably sloppy, but the ARM is sloppier.

That explains it - what a relief!
Thanx for the enlightment, thanx for your patience.

I am willing to spend money to get a copy of the final standard.
But my interest is not strong enough and my money is not much enough
to buy a copy of the current WP that might be outdated the next
meeting of the committee.

For the ones who want to participate better in the evoultion of the
standard, a service like the following would be very interesting:

(1) I pay once to get the current state of the standard (WP or DIS etc).
(2) Without any more paying, I'll recieve
    every revision of the standard in electronic form.
    [Or, if ISO is afraid of electronic copying,
     once a year (or so) the current state of the standard as hardcopy.]
(3) This whole offer costs less than 1.5* the price of the final standard.

How about that? I would do it. Where can I subscribe?


Ulf Schuenemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Sch   nemann
Institut f   r Informatik, Technische Universit   t M   nchen.
email: schuenem@informatik.tu-muenchen.de

I saw a lot of discussions going on here. Have there been any draft or draft
of the draft available for ftp?

Thanks.

---
Liang-liang LI

European Computer-Industry Research Centre      Tel. +49 (89) 926 99 175
Arabellastr 17, 81925 Muenchen, Germany  Fax. +49 (89) 926 99 170
Internet: LI.Liang-liang@ecrc.de

In article <3itlei$lnu@hermes.synopsys.com>,
Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>I wrote:
>>>Sorry, ANSI and ISO still believe in getting a big chunk of their budget
>>>by selling paper copies of standards and banning electronic publication.
>>>This policy is going to have to change sometime, but for now, that's
>>>the way it is.
>
>maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
>> You have missed a subtle point. The documents to be
>>reviewed are NOT Standards. Neither Standards Australia, nor
>>I believe ANSI, has the slightest interest in making money
>>selling copies of proposed Standards, only _actual_ Standards.
>
>You're paying a lot of attention to a small point and missing the main
>point.  Yes, it would be nice if drafts were available by FTP, but
>if the drafts are freely redistributable electronically while the
>final standard isn't, the effective standard would be the last draft:
>people would program to what they have available.

 And, in most cases, the final draft -- the DIS --
will be perfectly good enough for those people not rich enough
to buy the real thing.

 If it isn't, the ISO process has failed. The DIS is
supposed to be stable, and requiring only minor corrections --
like spelling errors.

>The point is that the C++ community would benefit much more if the final
>standard were freely redistributable and available in electronic form,
>with hypertext links.

 Yes. But there is a supposition that this would not
interfere with the very processes creating the Standard. If National
Bodies such as SA SNZ BSI DIN and ANSI cannot make money out of
Standardisation somehow, why should they bother funding the
development of the Standards?

>I recognize that this would cause some economic
>dislocation given the way standards bodies are currently funded.  This
>means that some other funding mechanism will need to be found.

 In general, I agree. I do not think the current ISO model
can work in a globally networked world free from thought police
and restrictions on information transmission.

>But remember that most of the cost of producing a standard is donated.

 I know only too well. :-(

>Many companies are already donating volunteer labor to getting the standards
>out, and these companies currently aren't getting anything from ANSI or
>ISO sales of printed copies of the standard.

 True. Microsoft, for example, creates Standards for
things like Windows API's and does not make money from ISO. :-))
It does, however, make money from its Standards.

>Free distribution of standards is not impossible; there are already
>working examples (Internet RFC's, for example).

 I agree. But building Standards in an anarchy like Internet
is going to take time to figure out.

 For example: there is a major portability problem in C and
C++ created by header files. How can I write code that will
work no matter where YOU put your files?

 Now, we of the Internet can create and implement a Standard
for solving this problem. Will we?  No, probably not.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <3itlei$lnu@hermes.synopsys.com>, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
|> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
|> > You have missed a subtle point. The documents to be
|> >reviewed are NOT Standards. Neither Standards Australia, nor
|> >I believe ANSI, has the slightest interest in making money
|> >selling copies of proposed Standards, only _actual_ Standards.
|>
|> You're paying a lot of attention to a small point and missing the main
|> point.  Yes, it would be nice if drafts were available by FTP, but
|> if the drafts are freely redistributable electronically while the
|> final standard isn't, the effective standard would be the last draft:
|> people would program to what they have available.

In fact, this is exactly what happened with the original SCSI
standard.  Almost everyone I know used the electronic copy of the last
draft, and that worked out pretty well, all things considered, except
probably that less money was made selling the final spec than had been
expected.  I'd _love_ to see electronic copies of specs, with
hyperlinks (REALLY useful for specs, which tend to refer back to the
wording in 1.17.32b), I have a whole shelf full of stuff that it's
pretty cumbersome to look stuff up in, especially since the index is
not always up to snuff (making a good index is hard word, tools or no
tools, but searching for a keyword in an on-line copy is pretty
easy...)

In article <D4up0t.Hwu@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
> Yes. But there is a supposition that this would not
>interfere with the very processes creating the Standard. If National
>Bodies such as SA SNZ BSI DIN and ANSI cannot make money out of
>Standardisation somehow, why should they bother funding the
>development of the Standards?

I don't know about the other national standards bodies, but ANSI doesn't
"fund" development of standards.  As far as I know, ANSI provides no
financial support to technical committees or their members -- in fact, they
charge the members for the privilege of authoring standards for them.
These charges don't go back to the committees -- in addition to the annual
membership fees, we have to cover the pay for any meeting and mailing
expenses (small committees often meet at member company offices rather than
hotel conference space, and CBEMA makes their meeting space in Wash, DC
available).  All that ANSI does is set the rules and procedures for
standardization committees and publish the final standards.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Internet Services Corp.
barmar@near.net

In article <3itlei$lnu@hermes.synopsys.com> jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:

   Free distribution of standards is not impossible; there are already
   working examples (Internet RFC's, for example).

By the time being this poor Ph.D. student had to fork out $65 for the
September revision of the draft. Anyone willing to send me the used
draft[n-1] when draft[n] comes out in exchange of mailing expenses?
[I guess once you have bought a copy of the draft you're entitled to
sell it, as long as you do not make copies of it].
--
    Maurizio Vitale
 _______________
|        _      |\   e-mail: mav@cc.gatech.edu     | How many times can
|  /|/| '_) | ) | |  voice:  (404) 881-6083 (home) | a man turn his head,
| | | |_(_|_|/  | |          (404) 853-9382 (work) | and pretend that he
|_______________| |                                | just doesn't see ?
 \_______________\|  fax:    (404) 853-9378        |  - Bob Dylan

In article <D4H763.JxF@research.att.com> ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>I hate to comment without knowing the facts, but are you certain
>that X3J16 and X3J14 have permission to make their drafts available
>on the net?  Or did they just decide not to ask?

X3J13 asked, and was given permission to make drafts available on the net
for the public reviews.  In addition, CBEMA made them available on
Compuserve.

In general, ANSI is much less restrictive on access to drafts and working
documents than they are on the final standards.  I don't think ANSI claims
copyright on anything other than these.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Internet Services Corp.
barmar@near.net

In article <3hbdqp$440@hermes.synopsys.com>,
Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry, ANSI and ISO still believe in getting a big chunk of their budget
>by selling paper copies of standards and banning electronic publication.
>This policy is going to have to change sometime, but for now, that's
>the way it is.

 You have missed a subtle point. The documents to be
reviewed are NOT Standards. Neither Standards Australia, nor
I believe ANSI, has the slightest interest in making money
selling copies of proposed Standards, only _actual_ Standards.

 On the contrary, distribution of proposed Standards
to those actively participating in the Standardisation process
is _desired_ by Standards Australia at least, and I guess
ANSI is much much stricter and _demands_ such documents be
distributed -- and without any profit being involved.
Thats why you can buy the WP for about $50, but if US prices
are anything like Australian ones the Standard will cost
well over $300 when it comes out.

(The SA version of the C Standard costs $A180. The ISO version
is also available (and identical except for the title page),
and costs about $A240 I think -- more because it is not
printed locally and involves paying a licence fee to ISO
per copy, whereas the SA version is licenced in bulk.
The C++ Standard is going to be considerably bigger :-).

So if the final Standard is going to sell, it has to be
well written -- and I can't think of a better way to advertise
it than invite participation in its contents -- by freely
making drafts available by ftp.

As to paper copies -- Standards Australia at least is
currently investigating producing CD ROM versions of Standards
of various kinds. (NOT just C++) This saves trees and money
and is quite certain to happen (IMHO).

When Internet has EFTPOS working securely, direct electonic
access (with payment) is also certain to happen.

Why would people use that? Answer: electronic signature
verification will ensure register claims of and requirements for
conformance have to match purchased copies of Standards.
That is, if a legal contract is registered, and based on a Standard,
then BOTH parties have to have purchased a copy of the Standard
to make the contract verifiable.

Paper can be photocopied.  It is a bit harder to violate
registration without very deliberate fraud. On the other
hand, mere programmers can have copies for free.
(Only major corporations registering constracts have to pay)

Don't hold your breath for this one :-)

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

I wrote:
>>Sorry, ANSI and ISO still believe in getting a big chunk of their budget
>>by selling paper copies of standards and banning electronic publication.
>>This policy is going to have to change sometime, but for now, that's
>>the way it is.

maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
> You have missed a subtle point. The documents to be
>reviewed are NOT Standards. Neither Standards Australia, nor
>I believe ANSI, has the slightest interest in making money
>selling copies of proposed Standards, only _actual_ Standards.

You're paying a lot of attention to a small point and missing the main
point.  Yes, it would be nice if drafts were available by FTP, but
if the drafts are freely redistributable electronically while the
final standard isn't, the effective standard would be the last draft:
people would program to what they have available.

The point is that the C++ community would benefit much more if the final
standard were freely redistributable and available in electronic form,
with hypertext links.  I recognize that this would cause some economic
dislocation given the way standards bodies are currently funded.  This
means that some other funding mechanism will need to be found.  But
remember that most of the cost of producing a standard is donated.  Many
companies are already donating volunteer labor to getting the standards
out, and these companies currently aren't getting anything from ANSI or
ISO sales of printed copies of the standard.

Free distribution of standards is not impossible; there are already
working examples (Internet RFC's, for example).


--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729

In article <5724@cthulhuControl.COM> dan@Control.COM (Dan Pierson) writes:

> On the other hand, both X3J13 (Common Lisp) and X3J14 (Forth) have
> made standard drafts and working documents available on the net.  I
> find it easy to believe that the C++ committee chose not to, but find
> claims that ANSI/ISO prevent it somewhat contra-factual...

I hate to comment without knowing the facts, but are you certain
that X3J16 and X3J14 have permission to make their drafts available
on the net?  Or did they just decide not to ask?  If the latter, they
might well get their head handed to them when ANSI finds out.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
>Sorry, ANSI and ISO still believe in getting a big chunk of their budget
>by selling paper copies of standards and banning electronic publication.
>This policy is going to have to change sometime, but for now, that's
>the way it is.

On the other hand, both X3J13 (Common Lisp) and X3J14 (Forth) have
made standard drafts and working documents available on the net.  I
find it easy to believe that the C++ committee chose not to, but find
claims that ANSI/ISO prevent it somewhat contra-factual...

                                            dan

In article <mikeq.6.010E4E34@primenet.com> mikeq@primenet.com (Michael Quinlan) writes:
>In article <3hd8ui$ot4@maggie.austin.wireline.slb.com> Jim Hargrove <hargrove@austin.asc.slb.com> writes:

>>ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) wrote:
>>The latest issue of Communications of the ACM has an excellent
>>discussion on this point. I recommend it to all.

>Where can I access an electronic edition of the CACM?

There doesn't seem to be one, but if there were it would presumably be
reachable from http://www.acm.org/.
--

Barry Margolin
BBN Internet Services Corp.
barmar@near.net

In article <3hd8ui$ot4@maggie.austin.wireline.slb.com> Jim Hargrove <hargrove@austin.asc.slb.com> writes:

>ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) wrote:
>>
>>
>> We are trying to convince them that the benefits of electronic
>> access outweigh the disadvantages.  I don't yet know the outcome.
>
>The latest issue of Communications of the ACM has an excellent
>discussion on this point. I recommend it to all.

Where can I access an electronic edition of the CACM?

In article <D3otr6.5n@research.att.com>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <3h4v62$6ac$1@usenet.pa.dec.com> tpm@spg01.ime.dec.com (Tim Murnaghan) writes:
>
>> Excellent news.
>I take it that public comment includes availability on the net
>
>I wish I knew.  If it were up to me, it would certainly be
>available on the net, but the people who define (and control)
>the standards process have traditionally been opposed to
>such things.
>

 The Working Paper is _already_ available on the net, and has
been for quite some time. But you can't FTP it. You have to ASK for
it personally, and, if you ask me, you have to convince me that you
meet the requirements of Standards Australia for distribution.
They are that the document can -- and should -- be distributed
to those wishing to _actively participate_ in the Standardisation process.
If you just want a free copy, to save buying the ARM,
I won't send it to you.  For me, processing the requests is
an unwarranted invasion of my free time. I'm a volunteer.

 I think this is a serious issue for ISO. I think free
electronic availability should be a pre-condition for ANY
future base documents and working papers of Standards.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

John Max Skaller (maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:

:  The Working Paper is _already_ available on the net, and has
: been for quite some time. But you can't FTP it. You have to ASK for
: it personally, and, if you ask me, you have to convince me that you
: meet the requirements of Standards Australia for distribution.

May I ask just what the requirements are?

: They are that the document can -- and should -- be distributed
: to those wishing to _actively participate_ in the Standardisation process.
: If you just want a free copy, to save buying the ARM,
: I won't send it to you.

I suspect that the WP is nowhere as readable as the ARM anyway.

:  I think this is a serious issue for ISO. I think free
: electronic availability should be a pre-condition for ANY
: future base documents and working papers of Standards.

Me too.
--
        Tony Cook - tony@online.tmx.com.au
                    100237.3425@compuserve.com

ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>|>At that meeting the committee will decide whether to send the next
>|>edition out for public comment.  If they do so, it is likely that
>|>it will be made generally available in mid-April. ....


tpm@spg01.ime.dec.com (Tim Murnaghan) writes:

> Excellent news. I take it that public comment includes availability on
> the net, as that's going to be the most effective way of getting to the
> "public" that will be interested.

Sorry, ANSI and ISO still believe in getting a big chunk of their budget
by selling paper copies of standards and banning electronic publication.
This policy is going to have to change sometime, but for now, that's
the way it is.

--
-- Joe Buck  <jbuck@synopsys.com> (not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Phone: +1 415 694 1729

In article <3h4v62$6ac$1@usenet.pa.dec.com> tpm@spg01.ime.dec.com (Tim Murnaghan) writes:

> Excellent news. I take it that public comment includes availability on the net

I wish I knew.  If it were up to me, it would certainly be
available on the net, but the people who define (and control)
the standards process have traditionally been opposed to
such things.

They have two reasons that I know about:  (1) not everyone has
net access, so using the net as a medium gives an unfair advantage
to some people over others; (2) distributing standards documents
in electronic form makes it easier for people to avoid paying
for them.

We are trying to convince them that the benefits of electronic
access outweigh the disadvantages.  I don't yet know the outcome.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) wrote:
>
>
> We are trying to convince them that the benefits of electronic
> access outweigh the disadvantages.  I don't yet know the outcome.
> --
>     --Andrew Koenig
>       ark@research.att.com
The latest issue of Communications of the ACM has an excellent
discussion on this point. I recommend it to all.

In article <3gqgb3$shq@due.unit.no> robert@idt.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:
>|>
>|> A new draft is issued every 4 months, generally in February, June, and
>|> October. The draft is part of the mailings that go out prior to the
>|> committee meetings, which are in March, July, and November.
>
>Are these mailings only for committee members,

 Yes.

>or can us mere
>mortals subscribe to these mailing lists (or whatever it is)?

 Yes.

 Simple deductive logic. The way you subscribe is
by becoming a member. Have dollars, can join X3J16.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <D3IB0r.AH3@research.att.com>, ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
|....
|>At that meeting the committee will decide whether to send the next
|>edition out for public comment.  If they do so, it is likely that
|>it will be made generally available in mid-April. ....

Excellent news. I take it that public comment includes availability on the net, as that's going to be
the most effective way of getting to the "public" that will be interested.
I know that by doing this the committee are going to have to be satisified that they are quite close,
as people are going to start quoting the draft back at them for some time to come, and that's the
decision they are going to have to take, but I would just like to lobby them and say that I think
that it could be worth that risk for the wider purpose of starting the process of educating
C++ users in the implications of the new standard.



Tim.

<ark@research.att.com> writes:
> In article  robert@idt.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:
>
> > Are these mailings only for committee members, or can us mere
> > mortals subscribe to these mailing lists (or whatever it is)?
>
> They are only for committee members.
> --
Regarding the various models which standards organizations use for
distribution and avilability of standards documents, see:
  Commnications of the ACM
  Feb. 1995  Vol.38, No. 2
  Sharing Standards;   Standards, Free or Sold?
  by R. Rada & J. Berg

As with many others who have discussed this topic here, and as
reflected by the frequent requests posted for copies, I think the
points made in this article for the benefits of wider distribution via
network outweigh any possible profit or localization of decision
considerations.

$.02

In article <D3IB0r.AH3@research.att.com>,
Andrew Koenig <ark@research.att.com> wrote:
>In article <3h0ag8$llv@martha.utk.edu> elemings@unix1.utm.edu (Brad Lemings) writes:
>
>> Anyone know what particular day in Febuary the newest draft will be released?
>
>It went to press February 1.  It will be included in the pre-meeting
>mailing for the meeting to be held in Austin March 5-10.
>
>At that meeting the committee will decide whether to send the next
>edition out for public comment.

Can you please tell us what is the most recent version currently available
to the public, and how to obtain it?

(This whole line of questioning would be a good meat for a FAQ, if it isn't
already in one.  I didn't notice one here at netcom.)

--
 (My usual signature suppressed since it's not germain to this group.)

Michael McClary      mcclary@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to: michael@node.com

In article <3gqgb3$shq@due.unit.no> robert@idt.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:

> |> A new draft is issued every 4 months, generally in February, June, and
> |> October. The draft is part of the mailings that go out prior to the
> |> committee meetings, which are in March, July, and November.

> Are these mailings only for committee members, or can us mere
> mortals subscribe to these mailing lists (or whatever it is)?

They are only for committee members.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

Steve Clamage (clamage@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article 8g4@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV, py4@dspy4 (JP McNeely) writes:
: >I understand a revised draft of the ANSI C++ standard is to be released
: >in the spring.  Does anyone know of a more definite date?

: A new draft is issued every 4 months, generally in February, June, and
: October. The draft is part of the mailings that go out prior to the
: committee meetings, which are in March, July, and November.

Anyone know what particular day in Febuary the newest draft will be released?

Eric Lemings

In article <3h0ag8$llv@martha.utk.edu> elemings@unix1.utm.edu (Brad Lemings) writes:

> Anyone know what particular day in Febuary the newest draft will be released?

It went to press February 1.  It will be included in the pre-meeting
mailing for the meeting to be held in Austin March 5-10.

At that meeting the committee will decide whether to send the next
edition out for public comment.  If they do so, it is likely that
it will be made generally available in mid-April.  However, it is
not possible to know for certain what will happen until the formal
votes at the meeting on March 10.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

I understand a revised draft of the ANSI C++ standard is to be released
in the spring.  Does anyone know of a more definite date?

Thank you.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| John P. McNeely                | mcneelyjp@ornl.gov           |
| Computing Analyst              | 615.574.8946                 |
| Martin Marietta Energy Systems |                              |
| 1099 Commerce Park, MS-7619    |                              |
| Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830     |                              |
| --------------------------------------------------------------|
| Standard Disclaimer: I don't speak for Martin Marietta        |
| Energy Systems or the Department of Energy.                   |
| --------------------------------------------------------------|

In article <3glp6g$8g4@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> py4@dspy4 (JP McNeely) writes:

> I understand a revised draft of the ANSI C++ standard is to be released
> in the spring.  Does anyone know of a more definite date?

There is no definite schedule yet.  There is likely to be a
definite schedule after the next committee meeting, which
ends March 10.
--
    --Andrew Koenig
      ark@research.att.com

In article 8g4@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV, py4@dspy4 (JP McNeely) writes:
>I understand a revised draft of the ANSI C++ standard is to be released
>in the spring.  Does anyone know of a more definite date?

A new draft is issued every 4 months, generally in February, June, and
October. The draft is part of the mailings that go out prior to the
committee meetings, which are in March, July, and November.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com

In article <3gm0g2$fg4@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes:
|> In article 8g4@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV, py4@dspy4 (JP McNeely) writes:
|> >I understand a revised draft of the ANSI C++ standard is to be released
|> >in the spring.  Does anyone know of a more definite date?
|>
|> A new draft is issued every 4 months, generally in February, June, and
|> October. The draft is part of the mailings that go out prior to the
|> committee meetings, which are in March, July, and November.

Are these mailings only for committee members, or can us mere
mortals subscribe to these mailing lists (or whatever it is)?

--
Robert Schmidt - robert@idt.unit.no

 All work and no play makes Robert a dull boy