attachment-0001

What about the -actuals which just passed last call and formal approval? Seems if everybody is getting a number, this should too. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-ifx@pwg.org 03/14/2003 05:55 PM <td>                To:        pwg@pwg.org         cc:        ifx@pwg.org         Subject:        IFX> RE: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard [        and future PDF/is standard]</table> <tt>So Don is suggesting that the PDF/is standard which is also a document format standard could be also numbered in the 5102 series along with the two XHTML/Print document format standards (5102.1 and 5102.2) when we assign a PWG IEEE-ISTO number to PDF/is. Comments? Tom -----Original Message----- From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 06:02 To: Hastings, Tom N Cc: Lewis, Harry Subject: RE: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard Tom: The documents (and their full titles) are available from http://www.pwg.org/xhtml-print/HTML-Version/XHTML-Print.html http://www.pwg.org/xhtml-print/HTML-Version/CSS-Print.html I think making the 5102 series be document formats makes sense. ********************************************** Don Wright                 don@lexmark.com Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org Director, Alliances & Standards Lexmark International 740 New Circle Rd Lexington, Ky 40550 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) ********************************************** "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 03/13/2003 05:28:42 PM To:    don@lexmark.com cc:    "Lewis, Harry" <harryl@us.ibm.com>, "Hastings, Tom N"       <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Subject:    RE: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard Don, That is what I remembered, so 5102.1 and 5102.2 sound OK? What are the full titles of each? We (or your WG) can decide later whether the 5102 series is for any PWG document format, such as PDF/is, or just for XHTML-like stuff or just for XML-related document formats or whatever, right? Tom -----Original Message----- From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:58 To: Hastings, Tom N Cc: Lewis, Harry Subject: Re: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard Just a reminder that the XHTML-Print group has TWO documents at Proposed Standard Status so we need two numbers. ********************************************** Don Wright                 don@lexmark.com Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org Director, Alliances & Standards Lexmark International 740 New Circle Rd Lexington, Ky 40550 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) ********************************************** "Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>@pwg.org on 03/13/2003 03:22:42 PM Sent by:    owner-pwg@pwg.org To:    "Lewis, Harry" <harryl@us.ibm.com> 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>