Subject: Re: PWG> The Printer Working Group as its own standards body

From: Scott Isaacson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:52:36 -0600

I would like to publicly agree with Jay's comments below:

************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: [email-masked]
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************

>>> JK Martin <[email-masked]> 08/20 12:53 PM >>>
> Regarding the "respectability" of a standard, the marketplace is the
> sole judge for whether a standard is "real" or not.  Some people seem
> to forget that neither HP PCL nor Adobe PostScript is a sanctioned
> standard...yet those standards pervade our industry to the point of
> becoming veritable household terms.  (Congrats to HP and Adobe. ;-)

No standard with win or loose just becuase it has the stamp of some
organization or not.  It must stand on its own.  It must be viable, useful,
timely, 
simple, etc.

> Therefore, I would propose that the PWG start using the IETF-based
> Informational RFC mechanism for publishing standards in the future,
> at least until we start publishing standards under the PWG banner itself.

Yes, use Informational RFCs.  They are bound to have a wider audience
than the PWG ftp server posted docs, and if they described "standards"
that are simple, useful, viable, etc, they will be widely accepted and
endorsed.

Scott