attachment-0001

I believe the answer is we want legit ISTO nums for the W3C to reference, else our work in the PWG becomes totally obscured (something we were mistakenly willing to relinquish when dealing with the IETF). ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>Ron.Bergman@hitachi-ps.us Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org 03/13/2003 02:22 PM <td>                To:        hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS         cc:        pwg@pwg.org         Subject:        RE: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO  number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard</table> <tt>Tom, I thought the XHTML Print documents were going to be published as W3C standards.  Unless that has changed, why do we need ISTO numbers? We have not assigned any ISTO numbers to the IPP documents published as IETF RFCs. As for IPPFAX, it would seem logical that they would be in the 5100 series to emphasize the relationship to IPP.  That is, unless we want to try to distance it from IPP. If the 5102 series is defined for languages, then PDF/is belongs in this group. Likewise, we could say 5101 is a "general category", and the PWG semantic model could be included here.  The Character Repertoires may also fit in this group. PSI does appear to be unique enough to be assigned a new series. (Just some of my thoughts to add to the confusion!)                 Ron -----Original Message----- From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:23 PM To: Lewis, Harry Cc: pwg@pwg.org Subject: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard Harry, Per the discussion today at the SM telecon on PWG process about standards numbers and what to do about allocating a PWG number for the Proposed PWG XHTML/Print standard as requested by Don for the W3C. In order to give Don a PWG number for the XHTML/Print Proposed PWG Standard, the next series of numbers not yet used is 5102.n. Currently, Proposed PWG standards have the following numbers: 5100.1, 5100.2, 5100.3, 5100.4 ... for IPP 5101.1 for the Media Standardized Names So how about 5102.1 for XHTML/Print.  If there are several documents, 5102.1 and 5102.2 ISSUE:  How to number future standards?  We can decide later how to allocate numbers for: PWG Semantic Model Print Services Interface IPPFAX PDF/is etc. Is the 5102 series for document formats, so that PDF/is would go in that series? Should IPPFAX go in its own series, or should it be in the IPP 5100.n series? Should PWG Semantic Model be in its own series? Should PSI be in its own series? Or is there some common theme that would help put some of these in the same series. ISSUE:  Separate isssue is what happens when the Proposed/Candidate Standard reaches Standard? Does it get a new number or use the same number?  If a new number could it be some algorithm from its original number, such as adding 50.  So 5150.2 would be the Standard version of Proposed standard 5100.2. Tom </tt>