Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
Thank you Stuart for your clarification of my assigned task :-)
I think, LSB standard explicitly documents the criteria of the utility
selection.
Then we can avoid unnecessary discussion why this tool is or is not
specified. Actually, LI18NUX had tough time to respond to those kinds
of comments at public review.
It is not my intention that all of the listed utilities need to be included
in LSB standard, but please let me explain the reason why we LI18NUX
specified those utilities in LI18NUX2000 specification.
LI18NUX2000 criteria is to specify shell and utilities that may be used
by application. Application may use those utilities via system() API
or most likely via shell script. In the sense, whole utilities in the scope
of POSIX.2 (ISO/IEC 9899-2) were in target area. However, some of
those utilities have no concerns from Internationalization point of
view, then we exclude those language and codeset neutral utilities.
Besides, as Alan mentioned, most likely vi may not be used by
application, though ex may. As you may know, LI18NUX2000 specification
has multiple options. One of those options is for application execution
environment, and one of other options is for application development
environment. vi is for application development options since to
write a source code, we do need a text editor which can handle
national language characters. Assuming that LSB is for application
execution environment specification, I agree that vi should not be
appropriate for it. It should be specified in the standard for application
development environment. Is it LDPS???
Best regards,
Akio Kido (Globalization CoC, Yamato, IBM & Co-chair person of Li18nux)
1623-14, Shimotsuruma, Yamato-shi, Kanagawa-ken 242, Japan (LAB-SA4)
E-mail: kido@jp.ibm.com Tel: +81-46-215-5436 FAX: +81-46-272-3352
From: Stuart Anderson <anderson@metrolink.com> on 2001/02/05 23:54
Please respond to Stuart Anderson <anderson@metrolink.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Akio Kido/Japan/IBM@IBMJP, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: LI18NUX comments to LSB 0.4.2
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 6, Lack of Utiliries
> > The following shell and utilities required for LI18NUX2000 are
lacked
>
> I dont think the LSB should be mandating many of the listed tools. Some
of them
> are only relevant to developers for example. And why is vi required. vi
is not
> used programatically by another tool so seems outside the lsb remit
Akio's task was to compare the two documents and find the things that have
been missed in the LSB. He did a great job on that.
There is another task to think about what commands it makes sense to
include
based on what an install script might need, and what a program may call out
to
using system() or popen().
The latter will likely filter the former.
Including vi in the spec, probably doesn't make sense, unless we decide
that
an application may need the ability to bring up an editor of some kind for
some reason.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
5807 North Andrews Way 129 Secret Cove Drive
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.660.2500 voice: 803.951.3630
http://www.metrolink.com/ XFree86 Core Team
Creative Applications Lab Chair - SIGGRAPH 2001
Reply to: