Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: ahby@uinj.UI.ORG (Shane McCarron)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Opinions on prospective standards sought
Message-ID: <130892@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 29 Apr 91 16:31:18 GMT
References: <130335@uunet.UU.NET>;
Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET
Lines: 26
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET

Submitted-by: ahby@uinj.UI.ORG (Shane McCarron)

> 
> Submitted-by: barmar@think.uucp (Barry Margolin)
> 
> I think the SEC's decision was good.  First, for all of the reasons that
> others have mentioned.  Second, because I'm not sure that IEEE P1003 is the
> appropriate umbrella standards organization for Motif or OpenLook.  ANSI
> X3H3.6 is standardizing window systems (X3H3 is the technical committee on
> computer graphics) and GUIs (I think Xlib is currently on their agenda).  I
> was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that Motif and OpenLook are
> intended to be portable beyond just Unix, so it would be inappropriate to
> standardize them as part of POSIX.

Actually, X3H3.6 has requested that TCOS take Xlib and anything above
that layer because they aren't going to get to it (my understanding).
However, I agree that 1003 is not the appropriate place.  1224 on the
other hand may be appropriate for higher level GUI interfaces.


-- 
Shane P. McCarron			ATT:	+1 201 263-8400 x232
Project Manager				UUCP:	s.mccarron@ui.org


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 51