Xref: utzoo comp.ivideodisc:326 comp.mail.multi-media:62
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!gbrown
From: gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.ivideodisc,comp.mail.multi-media
Subject: Re: U.S. HDTV STANDARDS DELEGATION SCUTTLES 1920x1080 COMMON IMAGE FORMAT
Message-ID: <1990Mar7.102855.22820@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 90 10:28:55 GMT
References: <132614@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 19

poynton@vector.Sun.COM (Charles A. Poynton) writes:

>U.S. HDTV STANDARDS DELEGATION SCUTTLES 1920x1080 COMMON IMAGE FORMAT
>February 23, 1990

>Washington, DC--High definition television standards development in the United
>States suffered a setback when the U.S. delegation to the international CCIR
>Interim Working Party decided that the United States should take no position
>regarding the adoption of a 1920x1080 Common Image Format (CIF) as the first
>step towards the goal of a single worldwide HDTV production standard.

Doesn't sound like too much of a setback. I mean: "decided that the [US] should
take no position regarding the addoption of ... [CIF]"  sounds GOOD to me.
In another group, someone posted that the FCC is doing extensive research 
into many standards.  The US HDTV Standards Delegation would be STUPID to
take a position before all of the facts were in.  Especially since the FCC
must approve of their decision to put the force of law behind the standard.

--Glenn