Re: Defect in XBD 10.2

[yyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 2003-08-12 12:20:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ajosey@xxxxxx writes:

>   Defect report from : Andrew Josey , The Open Group
>
> (Please direct followup comments direct to austin-group-l@xxxxxx)
>
> @ page 185 line 6540 section 10.2 comment {comment}
>
> Problem:
>
> Edition of Specification (Year): 2003
>
> Defect code :  3. Clarification required
>
> Section 10.2 requires
> that the PCD shall document which terminal types the system supports and
> which of the features and utilities in the Shell and Utilities volume
> of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 that are not supported by each terminal.
>
> Contrast this to the lp utility where it explicitly uses
> unspecified rather than implementation-defined and states:
>
>
>                                         
> "The term unspecified is used in this section in lieu of implementation-defined as most known implementations would not be able to make definitive statements in their conformance documents; the existence and usage of printers is very dependent on how the system  administrator configures each individual system."
>
> The variety of terminal support would appear to be a similar case to printers.
>
> Action:
>
> Consider making the requirement unspecified rather than
> implementation-defined, or a more general requirement
> on classes of terminals?


I'd think this was left implementation-defined as a tie-in to how much the implementation supports optional features of ncurses or items like ANSI escape codes in provided drivers. As a side note, I'm curious why the text of the ncurses specification wasn't included as parts of XBD and XSI, or as a separate volume like it was for SUSV2. Was it dropped as a requirement beacause it was more SUS specific?

Cheers,
Mark