From pub-mailer@expo.lcs.mit.edu Fri Oct 16 16:35:22 1992 Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA12279 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 19 Oct 1992 09:01:37 +0100 X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/; Relayed; Mon, 19 Oct 1992 09:01:14 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Mon, 19 Oct 1992 08:59:46 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:39:04 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:35:22 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:35:22 +0100 X400-Originator: pub-mailer%expo.lcs.mit.edu%NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK@primea.sheffield.ac.uk X400-Recipients: sc24@DKUUG.dk X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;<9210161435.AA03381@explain.lcs.] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Re: Status of... From: Bob Scheifler Sender: pub-mailer@expo.lcs.mit.edu Message-Id: <9210161435.AA03381@explain.lcs.mit.edu> To: John Dyer Cc: iso-xwindows@jnt.ac.uk, x3h36@expo.lcs.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <15319.9210160831@icarus.jnt.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Status of the XWindows dpANS Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 92 08:51:01 Resent-From: "C.Cartledge" X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 38 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.