attachment-0001
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Duh.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>[If
people can understand "jumbo shrimp" without losing sleep, I don't see why
"draft standard" would cause a problem.]</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>lee</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=840432702-31012003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis
[mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Hastings, Tom N<BR><B>Cc:</B> pwg@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>Er... Um... so why is it so hard to put the definition to
use and realize that a "Draft Standard" is a preliminary version of a
"Standard"?</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>---------------------------------------------- <BR>Harry Lewis <BR>IBM
Printing Systems <BR>----------------------------------------------
</FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>01/30/2003 04:24 PM</FONT> </P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> To:
pwg@pwg.org</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
cc: </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> Subject:
PWG> "Draft Standard" is an
oxymoron</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT size=2><TT>Here is why I
think that "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron. Draft is too<BR>fleeting.
Standard is meant to be more stable.<BR><BR>So I looked up the word
"Draft" in the dictionary. Webster's Seventh<BR>Collegiate Dictionary
says:<BR><BR>"a preliminary sketch, outline, or version".<BR><BR>We all use the
word "draft" (or "working draft") to mean the document that<BR>we update rapidly
to get to a version that we all consider stable enough to<BR>have a Last
Call.<BR><BR>So one of the appealing suggestions made at today's call was to
just remove<BR>section 3.4 Draft Standard and have only 3.4 Proposed Standard
and 3.6<BR>Standard. Both have to have a series of drafts to be reviewed
to lead up to<BR>being an approved Proposed Standard or an approved Standard.
And both need<BR>to have a draft that is considered good enough to both
trying a Last Call<BR>and then the Last Call has to actually pass.<BR><BR>I
think much of our trouble is terminology, so fixing the terminology,
and<BR>deleting a step seems to be a good thing to do and is NOT abandoning
the<BR>process or overturning
turnips.<BR><BR>Tom<BR></TT></FONT><BR></BODY></HTML>