Interpretations

Answering questions that may arise related to the meaning of portions of an IEEE standard concerning specific applications.

IEEE Standards Interpretations for IEEE Std 1003.1™-2001 IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX®)

Copyright © 2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016-5997 USA All Rights Reserved.

Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of a standard and do not constitute an alteration to the original standard. In addition, interpretations are not intended to supply consulting information. Permission is hereby granted to download and print one copy of this document. Individuals seeking permission to reproduce and/or distribute this document in its entirety or portions of this document must contact the IEEE Standards Department for the appropriate license. Use of the information contained in this document is at your own risk.

IEEE Standards Department Copyrights and Permissions 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331, USA

Interpretation Request #17
Topic: locale -k (Rdvk finaltext/XCU ERN 1) Relevant Sections: XCU locale STDOUT

Clarification required PASC interpretation #146 for P1003.2-1992 identified an ambiguity in the description of the locale utility. No change was made in XCU6 related to this, so I assume the intention was to continue to allow either of the possible behaviours. It would be better if this is stated explicitly.

After "Compound keyword values (list entries) shall be separated in the output by semicolons." insert "For non-numeric values it is unspecified whether the output contains quoted strings separated by semicolons, or semicolon-separated values within one quoted string."

Interpretation Response
The standard states that the current requirements and conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor.

Rationale for Interpretation
We disagreed with the conclusion given in PASC interpretation 1003.2-1992 #146, and believe that the standard is clear. However since existing practice is divided we would recommend that the following notes to the editor be considered for a future revision