I haven't posted to this list because I think its validity is in question.

I don't believe that OpenReader as currently proposed is a legitimate
reason to splinter the OEB format development. (I've expressed this
sentiment to Jon Noring before and in blogs at Teleread.)

I reiterate my position at Teleread in a post entitled "OpenReader
manifesto." [1]

Although Jon Noring has said before that OpenReader could be developed
as a specification under the auspices of an OASIS Technical Committee,
I do not believe an OpenReader project charter would be accepted as
the plans currently exist. OASIS states explicitly that it will not
sponsor spec-creation for alternatives to existing standards.

As I understand him, Jon would delay most or all of the features I've
discussed until a future version of OpenReader; his opposition, I
believe him to be saying, is one of timing and possibly practicality
rather than of good or bad implementation.

At any rate, despite Jon's launching of the OpenReader initiative, I
believe it must bite off considerably more than he proposes. My
thoughts, as indicated, can be found at Teleread.

Roger Sperberg

[1] "OpenReader manifesto" http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=5011