Re: [OT?] C++ Standard - 14882:2003

From: Dietmar Kuehl (dietmar_kuehl_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/06/04 

Date: 6 Jan 2004 02:16:33 -0800

"John Brown" <_nospam@_nospam.com> wrote:
> I was also told by another committee member sometime ago (his name
> escapes me off-hand) that members even have an HTML version but the ISO
> itself is responsible for its release as a ".pdf" file.

There is indeed a HTML version used by committee members. However, this
version is not always 100% accurate and is occasionally missing some stuff
or has mangled text. Thus, it is not fit as a standard document: the
authorative version is the PDF one, even though the HTML is often used
when working on this stuff.
 
> The document may be
> just an electronic copy of the final standard but I suspect many developers
> (myself included) frequently reference it. Proper page numbers, links, and
> the ability to move back and forth to previously visited pages like in one's
> favorite (HTML) browser would be a welcome relief.

If it so much of a relief, you might want to consider joining the committee
and get the [unofficial] HTML version...

> I could contact the ISO
> if they're ultimately responsible but I seriously doubt it would go
> anywhere. An official source would carry much more weight. Your comments?

ISO is not responsible for releasing documents to the public. This is the
job of the national bodies, eg. ANSI, BSI, or DIN. Since these bodies
receive a reasonable part of their income from selling standard documents
it took already a huge amount of arguing with them to offer any electronic
version at a reasonable price at all (my understanding is that C++ was the
first standard made available in electronic form at low costs thanks to
Tom Plum pressing the issue with ANSI; recently BSI agreed to publishing
the C and C++ standards in form of a book at relatively low costs thanks
to Francis Glassborow pressing the issue with BSI). I doubt that any
standards body would agree to an easily modifyable format, like HTML: the
effects of circulating modified versions (well, of course, both circulating
and modifying version would be illegal) would be pretty bad! Actually,
some people still use old HTML version of CD1 or CD2 which bad enough
already...

Another complication is the production of the HTML in the first place: the
standard document is still maintained in troff. Actually, I think it is
even a modified version of troff which means that even if there is a version
of troff (or groff) which would be capable of creating HTML, it would not
be able to process the sources for the C++ standard (the reasons for this
lie in the history of the standard). There was some discussion of moving to
a more modern source but this isn't an easy task: apart from the effort
needed to convert the sources, there are some neat features of the current
system which are not readily available in alternatives. The HTML used
internally by the committee has some flaws which isn't that harmful because
the people working on the respective section normally know what should be
there.

BTW: there was no standard voted on in 2003. The current C++ standard is
still the one from 1998. The 2003 document is the 1998 standard augmented
with the changes from 2003 Technical Corrigendum. However, the resulting
document is not really binding although implementers are likely to resolve
conflicts and ambiguities in the 1998 standard to follow the Technical
Corrigendum. The next C++ standard will not become finished before 2007.
Actually, I personally doubt that it will become finished before 2009
barely making the C++0X goal... 

--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: HTML (WAS: MF having issues?)
    ... Even though he is only serving up static HTML pages and has no idea how they work or the fine points of the language, he has a very professional looking site that he built in about an hour. ... Oliver, I can't address HTML but as a golden rule, regardless of which language/tool you use there MUST BE a STANDARD - otherwise you finish up with those inconsistencies you cited. ... The eventual standard used the syntax 'Repository' instead of 'Class-Control', which Fujitsu had from Day One. ... John Piggott - I met him only once at Newbury, for a J4 meeting in 2000, sat next to our Robert Jones who used to trundle up from Gloucester, not as a member, but as a developer contributing ideas. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Your mindset about Forth?
    ... Can Chuck Moore build a full GUI in 4K of ... Similarly with HTML. ... official standard, your HTML server has to provide something that the ... free Forths did not provide TCP/IP. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: COBOL FAQ *moved*
    ... HTML and related technologies are standardized by the ... If you care about standard compliance, ... I find that usually Firefox is implementing the ... These semantics also happens to be the semantics that W3C describes ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Lack of end tag messes up form styling - a known bug?
    ... They have the status of drafts. ... It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material ... It would be incorrect to speak of an HTML 1.0 standard. ... But since HTML existed prior to HTML 2.0, it's perfectly valid to assign a name to that HTML, regardless of whether it was standardized. ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
  • Re: [OT?] C++ Standard - 14882:2003
    ... I was also told by another committee member sometime ago (his name ... escapes me off-hand) that members even have an HTML version but the ISO ... just an electronic copy of the final standard but I suspect many developers ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)