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: scott_isaacson at novell.com
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************
>>> JK Martin <jkm at underscore.com> 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