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 6.00.2722.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Dropping the naming question for now... I object to the idea of versioning standards as it appears to be  proposed. The working drafts (or whatever we want to call them) must be versioned (and I prefer the date rather than the number which has some implicit significance about degree of finality... a very specious concept). But once something is a standard, the document should not be versioned. If the content of a standard needs to be a changed, it should not be done lightly. There needs to be a superceding standard that will, as part of its title, indicate that it deals with a different version of the protocol, interface or whatever. If there is consensus, this superceding standard can easily be fast-tracked. But having multiple versions of a "standard" merely suggests that the standard was not properly thought out and reviewed in the first place.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Wagner</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:03 PM To: Hastings, Tom N Cc: Farrell, Lee; PWG (E-mail) Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron </DIV> I propose we draft a working draft of a proposal for drafting draft standards proposals. Oh.. that's right.. we did that once... Seriously... can we move off the topic of how the brain and tongue work together and focus on what appeared to be the issues with substance from yesterday's call? 1. 3 tier or 2 tier. We had a 3 step process but I'm willing to reduce this to 2 steps based on our experience   - We used to call our 3 step process Proposed, Draft and Standard   - We can call our 2 step process anything but I think Proposed and Standard were the most vocal (Draft and Standard does fit better in my brain... but then there is this endless debate.. anyone got a coin)? 2. Versioning   - <major>.<minor>.<revision>   - date coded We have documents in or nearing last call which really depend on closure. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD>"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 01/31/2003 12:35 PM <TD>                To:        "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>         cc:        "PWG (E-mail)" <pwg@pwg.org>         Subject:        RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron</TR></TBODY></TABLE> Lee and Bill,   The problem is what do you call successive versions of the Draft Standard, before you are ready to send it out for Last Call?   Working Drafts of the Draft Standard?   Using "Draft" in two different senses in the same sentence to identify a document is pretty confusing.  And we know that people in normal conversion like to drop the adjectives and just talk about the "Draft".  So which do they mean when they say the "Draft is ...".   Tom -----Original Message----- From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 18:33 To: PWG (E-mail) Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron Duh.   [If people can understand "jumbo shrimp" without losing sleep, I don't see why "draft standard" would cause a problem.]   lee   -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05 PM To: Hastings, Tom N Cc: pwg@pwg.org Subject: Re: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron 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%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="2%"> <TD width="50%">"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 01/30/2003 04:24 PM <TD width="47%">               To:        pwg@pwg.org        cc:                Subject:        PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron</TR></TBODY></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> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>