attachment-0001

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"? ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 01/30/2003 04:24 PM <td>                To:        pwg@pwg.org         cc:                 Subject:        PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron</table> <tt>Here is why I think that "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron.  Draft is too fleeting.  Standard is meant to be more stable. So I looked up the word "Draft" in the dictionary.  Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary says: "a preliminary sketch, outline, or version". We all use the word "draft" (or "working draft") to mean the document that we update rapidly to get to a version that we all consider stable enough to have a Last Call. So one of the appealing suggestions made at today's call was to just remove section 3.4 Draft Standard and have only 3.4 Proposed Standard and 3.6 Standard.  Both have to have a series of drafts to be reviewed to lead up to being an approved Proposed Standard or an approved Standard.  And both need to have a draft that is considered good enough to both trying a Last Call and then the Last Call has to actually pass. I think much of our trouble is terminology, so fixing the terminology, and deleting a step seems to be a good thing to do and is NOT abandoning the process or overturning turnips. Tom </tt>