attachment-0001

Thanks, Bill. To use a contemporary analogy, we flip-flopped so many times I guess I missed the final resolution on where to put the binding specs. I will post an amended version which includes your observations. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>"Wagner,William" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com> Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org 10/21/2004 11:28 AM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td valign=top>Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, <wims@pwg.org> <tr> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td valign=top> <tr> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td valign=top>RE: WIMS> Conference Call mins - 10/20/2004</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> Thanks Harry.   I would add that the discussion of bindings settled on the binding being a separate document, not an appendix.   Other items of potential interest are that the IBM UML sequence diagram(s) would be incorporated in the general section of the spec., that we had some discomfort with the size and effort of the WIMS Object spec effort as well as the fact that it reverts to schema as normative documentation,  and that it may be time to reactivate the Requirements document effort.   Bill Wagner -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:16 PM To: wims@pwg.org Subject: WIMS> Conference Call mins - 10/20/2004 Minutes are posted <a href=ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/minutes/wims_041020.pdf>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/minutes/wims_041020.pdf</a> ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ----------------------------------------------