On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Isaac Gerg firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
As I understand it, they simply could not agree on a single standard and felt both must be approved. That is as much as i can get out of the literature.
But were arguments made on both sides that were so compelling, or did they have different trade-offs? I'm just trying to get a grip on the situation.