Work progresses on ISO COBOL definition of native support for XML

From: William M. Klein (wmklein_at_nospam.netcom.com)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:32:00 GMT

To: IBM-MAIN, comp.lang.cobol, & LNGC distribution lists (and others)

I thought you might be interested in the latest draft of the specification for
"native language" support for "Standard" COBOL.

For those familiar with the existing Micro Focus extensions, this will look
fairly familiar; For those of you used to the existing IBM extensions, this will
look quite different. (I am not certain what extension language other COBOL
vendors currently have for native XML support.)

Please see the document at:

     http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/04-0092.doc

for the full "specification". For those (most of you) not interested in the
"nuts and bolts", I suggest that you look at the

   "Concepts"

section beginning on page 27.

There is another document showing both those issues that have been (tentatively)
resolved and those issues that are still open. This document can be viewed at:

    http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/04-0093.doc

***

Although definitely still in a DRAFT stage, if you have any significant (or
even not so significant) comments that you want considered by those working on
this document, I suggest that you send them to the chair of J4 at:

    Don.Schricker <at> microfocus.com

According to:

 http://www.cobolstandards.com/index.asp

publication of the TR (Technical Report) including this support is planned for
2006. Therefore, I would expect any "public review" periods to be sooner than
later - and any comments that you have before that may well help avoid a delay
in the publication of the final document (and the currently planned 2008 full
revision of the 2002 Standard). 

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Program templates as Object Classes
    ... Here's the problem with OO COBOL - it is still very incomplete.. ... realized that OO was incomplete without support ... It's about two years ago a former, retired M/F Manager, (not Bill Klein ... Micro Focus above - but he was referring to the fact that Standard ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: cobol on pc
    ... LEAST since the '02 Standard was approved 5 years ago. ... I don't blame the vendors who walked. ... The only reason there is any kind of reasonable COBOL available today is ... IBM have a major legacy support committment that must not be eroded. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: diff between cobol1 & cobol3
    ... (The LANGLVL compiler option impacted this). ... Standard via the CMPR2 compiler option. ... supported Enterprise COBOL, support the '85 Standard *plus* the Intrinsic ... The current (Enterprise COBOL) no longer supports the CMPR2 ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Can Open COBOL do this...?
    ... NOTHING that is called or is a "97" Standard. ... I believe Fujitsu have a COBOL product called COBOL 97 (It later became ... Pete - cast your mind back to SoftwareSimple - At one stage I suggested, that the then J4 could arrive at a common set of Collection/Dictionary classes, (and with no info on Fujitsu - there were no on-line manuals at the time), both F/J and M/F could adapt their classes, using PRIVATE methods to feed into the common standard. ... When it comes to support utilities/classes, as you've indicated for C# - 4,000 or was that 40,000, the M/F Collections/Dictionaries are a FRACTION of the M/F support classes. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Discussions of COBOL philospphy
    ... It is a pity that the 2002 standard, which is actually trying to do some useful things with the language, has inherited this ... I wonder, was there a point when, had the COBOL community had the ... Suppose, there had been a release of the COBOL 90 standard, that included OO. ... Suppose a decent IDE and support tools had been available, that worked across platforms providing the same support in mainframe ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)