Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Should NIST adopt the Xt Intrinsics? (long) Message-ID: <8908181238.AA07389@expire.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 18 Aug 89 12:38:08 GMT References: <272@nap1.cds.wpafb.af.mil> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 78 Any answers/feedback/opinions would be greatly appreciated. I really doubt most people on this list care about this issue, but I'll give you a personal opinion. Please note that comments made in this forum are ultimately pretty useless, what matters is what NIST hears directly, preferably in written form. If adopted, most applications which fall into the above category would have to be based on Xlib and the Xt Intrinsics. I think this is the only interesting issue about the FIPS. I have heard conflicting interpretations of the FIPS as to whether Xt is viewed as exclusive or non-exclusive. I offer you no opinion on this. If you care about this issue, I suggest you get a clarification from NIST, and them make your reaction known to them. Independent of how the FIPS is intended, there is the issue of how the FIPS will actually be used in procurements. For that, you will simply have to rely on your own experience in the federal sector. 1) They are specifying X11R3. Shouldn't they really spec R4? This is a malformed question. R4 doesn't exist yet. Perhaps what you mean is, shouldn't they delay the FIPS until the rumored R4 Intrinsics revision is out? My opinion is no, they shouldn't wait. A FIPS doesn't happen overnight. Work on this FIPS was underway before there was any real notion of an R4 Intrinsics revision. The R3 Intrinsics were adopted as a Consortium standard, meaning that the Consortium encourages people to use it. The federal government should not be excluded from this. The fact that a future version of the Intrinsics might cover a broader base of application development does not negate the utility of the R3 Intrinsics. A FIPS is not a formal standard (in the sense of ANSI or ISO). It is relatively straightforward to issue a new FIPS, covering a later revision. For example, there is a FIPS out on a draft version of POSIX, which was certainly expected to be revised. 2) Do the benefits of standardization outweigh losing Andrew, Interviews, (and others, I'm sure) applications which are not based on the intrinsics? See my comments on exclusive vs. non-exclusive above. 3) It seems to me that for true application portability, you would need to either stay with Xlib, or standardize all the way up to the widget level. I would strongly disagree that "staying with Xlib" would aid portability. I think you will find strong agreement among the federal agencies that a standard widget set is desirable/essential; at least, that's what I heard when attending one or two of the NIST workshops that led up to this FIPS. However, NIST must in general strive for consensus positions, and there is at present no consensus for a standard widget set. There is work going on in this area in IEEE P1201, but the outcome is far from certain (to my mind). Perhaps they should state that applications not be based on proprietary widget sets. There is no such industrial-strength thing today. 4) Is ICCCM compliance important to application portability? Sure. Again, this FIPS got started before the ICCCM was really rolling, and can be revised later. If you feel it's important to include the ICCCM in this or a later FIPS, make your position known to NIST. Am I correct in assuming that most vendors will have little difficulty producing compliant applications, even if they normally use extended intrinsics? Since compliance for this FIPS has not (to my knowledge) been defined, that's rather difficult to answer. Again, I suggest that if you care about this issue, you ask NIST for clarification. 6) I've heard that the X Consortium and X/Open are both opposed to standardizing on the intrinsics at R3 and even at R4. Is this true? A FIPS is not a formal standard, it is a goverment standard. I am opposed to to formal standardization of the R3 Intrinsics, and perhaps even the R4 Intrinsics, because the rules of the game are quite different in terms of when and how you can revise the specification. But the argument does not apply to a FIPS.