At 03:26 PM 6/5/97 PDT, Scott Isaacson wrote:
>>I too share Carl-Uno's concerns about the "angle" of the article, especially
>the implications of words such as "unravel".
>>As I said on the phone during our interview, I expect the standards process
>(working group participation and discussion) to yield a consensus decision
>in a timely manner that results in the best possible standard for Internet
>Printing. With diligent participation, I have faith in the process. As you
>correctly represented, I have confidence that we can reach a consensus
>decision in the time frame outlined in the schedule in the working group's
>>As an example of the controversial nature of your article, you state
>"A tentative deal worked out with the companies began to fall apart
>when the participants divided into two factions -- one lead by
>Microsoft, in Redmond, Wash., and the other by Novell, in Orem,
>Utah, meeting participants said."
>>I made a strong statement in the discussion that you refer to that a
>successful standard, "simple" standard, should not have multiple levels of
>conformance. It is interesting that it can be construed as the "dividing of
>companies into two factions." Especially since 1) I represent my own
>personal opinion and not that of my company, and 2) there were no idividuals
>involved in that immediate phone discussion representing their personal
>opinions who work for Microsoft. Everyone has their own strong personal
>positions, but the job is to learn to synergistically resolve issues.
>>A lot has happened since the original printing proposal by Xerox and Novell
>and the associated Novell sponsored press release back in November. There
>has been a lot of good input and comment from many participants. I am proud
>to be a part of the working group and I am happy to take a very active role.
> In my own mind, it is now an open working group initiative not a company
>sponsored initiative. I am actually very pleased (and surprised in some
>ways) as to how far we have come and the many good agreements that have been
>made to date.
thanks for writing this letter to Evan. I fully agree with it. I sent back
the following short reply to him yesterday:
thanks for taking the time to write me, appreciated. You are right that
most of the article gave a correct and accurate description of where we are
standing, the main trouble I had was with the headline and the hints which
seemed to indicate that there was major trouble ahead, which I saw as an
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com