Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!usc!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: re: XVT (& IEEE P1201.1)
Message-ID: <9007251317.AA03718@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 90 13:17:46 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 37


    IEEE Standards Working Group Chooses XVT:  At its June meeting in San Jose,
    the IEEE P1201.1 Working Group voted to base its proposed standard for a
    virtual API on XVT.

It's useful to note that the group did this without ever having distributed
the XVT specification in a mailing to its members, and after having circulated
only half of the XVT specification (a sizeable document) at the two-day June
meeting.  The people present at the June meeting (I wasn't there) apparently
also approved a "virtual" document derived from XVT before it was ever even
written.  You are welcome to draw your own conclusions as to the wisdom of
these actions.

[I don't mean to imply that I dislike XVT; I've yet to see a specification
of it, so I have not yet produced an informed opinion.]

    This group had previously been working on standardizing
    an X-Windows-System-based toolkit, but was unable to choose between OSF/MOTIF
    and OPEN LOOK.

The group was certainly deadlocked on this issue.

    Also, many members of the group wanted the standard API to
    work on non-X systems, such as the Macintosh, MS-Windows, Presentation
    Manager, and character displays.

This is certainly true, although my personal opinion is that it was not the
driving force.  The driving force was the deadlock, and the desparate feeling
that the group had to standardize on *something*.

    If the group's new Project Authorization Request is approved, it will begin
    drafting a standard based on XVT with the goal of going to ballot in a year.

The PAR was delayed on a technicality at the meeting in Danvers last week.  I
think the general feeling was that it was delayed because the approval body
did not wish to tackle what had become a very charged issue, both technically
and politically.