From CS1CJC@pa.shef.ac.uk Wed Oct 21 18:01:52 1992 Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA23751 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:10:17 +0100 X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/; Relayed; Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:09:54 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Wed, 21 Oct 1992 16:10:01 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Wed, 21 Oct 1992 17:01:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 17:01:52 +0100 X400-Originator: CS1CJC@PRIMEA.SHEFFIELD.ac.uk X400-Recipients: sc24@DKUUG.dk X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;mhs-relay..876:21.09.92.15.10.01] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: No X standard? From: "C.Cartledge" Message-Id: <"19879 Wed Oct 21 16:10:04 1992"@mhs-relay.ac.uk> To: sc24 Subject: No X standard? X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Chris Cartledge Tel: 0742 768555 Ext: 4274 Academic Computing Services Fax: 0742 753899 University of Sheffield SHEFFIELD, UK, S10 2TN Dear Colleagues, Apologies if you have seen this before - I thought I sent it but have not got a copy back. It seems very sad to say the least that there will be no X protocol standard. Chris Message from JNT-Mail on 16/10/92 at 15:32:30 Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY ; Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:32:28 GMT Received: from EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id ; Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:39:04 +0100 Received: by expo.lcs.mit.edu; Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:36:16 -0400 Received: from explain.lcs.mit.edu by expo.lcs.mit.edu; Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:35:25 -0400 Received: by explain.lcs.mit.edu; Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:35:23 -0400 Message-Id: <9210161435.AA03381@explain.lcs.mit.edu> To: John Dyer Cc: iso-xwindows@uk.ac.jnt, x3h36@edu.mit.lcs.expo Subject: Re: Status of the XWindows dpANS In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Oct 92 09:31:43 BST." <15319.9210160831@icarus.jnt.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 10:35:22 EDT From: Bob Scheifler Sender: pub-mailer@edu.mit.lcs.expo I was under the impression that this document was due to complete its public review during September 1992, however the message I have received indicates that the final decision will be taken in JANUARY 1993. The second public review did close. A few responses were received, including resubmissions of earlier comments from Steve Carson and Jon Steinhart. A response document was created by about three people, and sent out for letter ballot. At the recent X3H3 meeting, Tom Porcher (Digital) was the only person who showed up to deal with things, and he met with Peter Bono (chair of X3H3). They decided to delay consideration until after Tom could present options to the X Consortium at our annual meeting, held this week. At that meeting, it was agreed that further progression of the ANSI standard was not an effective use of resources, and we've recommended to Tom that X3H3 simply drop the work. I doubt that X3H3 will disagree with us. Tom may like to provide his own comments. The X Consortium will want to decide what to do with the document. At a minimum, I'll propose that the protocol additions done by ANSI (e.g. keysyms, pixelization rules) be incorporated into the X Consortium standard. I'll also propose that the OSI work be adopted as an X Consortium standard. Whether the ANSI documents we replace our current documents, or whether words will be lifted out and incorporated into our current documents, will be a matter for discussion.