Hi,
Rather than introducing "wg" in quotes, I suggest we take up
Dennis' idea of 'xyz' everywhere. Especially because a
Working Group that produces more than one standard needs a
separate acronym for _each_ standard. So sometimes it's
"xyz" (just the working group short name) and sometimes
(in the simple filename) it's "xyzacro" (where "acro" is
for example "doc" in the "ippdoc" Document Object spec).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Dennis Carney
Cc: pwg at pwg.org; don at lexmark.com
Subject: Re: PWG> Process document updated
Dennis:
Yikes... I missed that in Clause 4. We clearly need to use the same symbol
throughout the document.
**********************************************
Don Wright don at lexmark.com
Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org
Director, Alliances & Standards
Lexmark International
740 New Circle Rd
Lexington, Ky 40550
859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************
Dennis Carney <dcarney at us.ibm.com> on 03/11/2003 10:17:45 AM
To: pwg at pwg.org
cc: don at lexmark.com
Subject: Re: PWG> Process document updated
In regards to your question 1, it's a bit worse: chapter 4 uses 'xyz'. I
guess it makes sense to use the same "generic working group abbreviation"
in all places. My personal vote would have been 'xyz', since it is very
clear that it needs to be replaced with the actual working group
abbreviation. But I don't feel strongly about it. If we *did* use 'wg',
we could maybe put it in italics wherever it appears to make it clear it is
a variable that needs to be replaced?
Dennis
don at lexmark.com
To: Dennis
Carney/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
03/11/03 08:05 AM cc: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG> Process
document updated
A question and a thought:
1) Why in Clause 6 do we use "wg" as a stand-in for the working group's
acronym and in Clause 8, we seem to use "xxx"??
2) In regards to issue 4, I think we should require LOAs to be in place
before a document progresses to "Candidate Standard."
**********************************************
Don Wright don at lexmark.com
Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org
Director, Alliances & Standards
Lexmark International
740 New Circle Rd
Lexington, Ky 40550
859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************
Dennis Carney <dcarney at us.ibm.com>@pwg.org on 03/10/2003 07:21:59 PM
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
To: pwg at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: PWG> Process document updated
I have updated the PWG Process document with the changes discussed at the
SM telecon last Thursday. The changes resolved issues 1-6 in the prior
version. Issues 7-8 had to do with the LOA in the Intellectual Property
chapter, and we didn't resolve those during the telecon, so I made no
changes for those in this version.
I added two new issues, having to do with the maturity version.
I believe that this document is going to be discussed at the SM telecon
this Thursday, March 13.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310.docftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310-rev.docftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030310-rev.pdf
Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems