I agree with Tom. Readers shouldn't need to be Word experts to be able to
see the revisions.
And by the way, Rick, you mention "Final Showing Markup". I believe that
that option is new in Word 2002. I'm sure that many people are still on
Word 97 or Word 2000.
Dennis Carney
IBM Printing Systems
"Hastings, Tom N"
<hastings at cp10.es To: Rick Seeler <rseeler at adobe.com>
.xerox.com> cc: pwg at pwg.org
Sent by: Subject: RE: PWG> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed S tandards
owner-pwg at pwg.org
01/30/03 04:02 AM
Rick,
I've resisted just down-loading one version of the .doc file so that each
user has to decide whether or not they want to see revision marks. There
are too many ways that the document can be viewed and/or printed. You have
to know to check when printing the .doc to see if the tracking is set the
way you want it, separately from the way you are viewing it. I've seen
some
authors turn off the revision marks for viewing but not for printing and
vice versa. What a confusion! I'm not sure how many users know the ins
and
outs of the document tracking mechanism. Its two separate check boxes
hidden under Tools/Track Changes/Highlight changes...
Also I've found it is a good discipline as an author to keep the date and
version number in the file name and edit just the -rev version until ready
to down load it for others to review. Then make the -ref.pdf. Then accept
all changes and save as the .doc and make the .pdf. Its like creating a
software base level. Then you make the next changes, you do it in the .doc
file (since is is a slightly later date and time in your Explorer listing.
So you turn on change tracking and save with the next higher version number
and the day's date. That way you don't forget to accept the revision marks
before starting a new round of edits after publishing a version.
Lets see what other say.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Seeler [mailto:rseeler at adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 15:47
To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; pwg at pwg.org
Cc: sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed
Standards
Tom,
In your template, you mention that you should publish a "xxx-rev.doc" file
in
addition to a "xxx.doc" and other versions of a specification. Why do we
need
to publish both a "xxx.doc" and an "xxx-rev.doc" when you can view the
changes
in the Word document by just changing a Word setting ("Final Showing
Markup"
as
opposed to "Final")? This seems to be overkill. Obviously my question
does
not
apply to the "xxx.pdf" versions; the "xxx-rev.pdf" version is still needed.
-Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org] On Behalf
> Of Hastings, Tom N
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:19 PM
> To: pwg at pwg.org> Cc: sm at pwg.org> Subject: PWG> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG
> Proposed Standards
>>> In case there is time at the end of the SM telecon tomorrow,
> Thursday, Jan 30, 1-2 PM EST (10-11 PST) after we discuss the
> PWG Process, here is a Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template
> for PWG Proposed Standards.
>> This is a one-time notification to both reflectors. Further
> on-line discussion of the PWG Template with occur ONLY on
>pwg at pwg.org, NOT on the sm at pwg.org (same as for any other PWG
> process discussion).
>> Dennis Carney, Ira McDonald, Ron Bergman, and I have been
> working on an MS-WORD template for PWG IEEE-ISTO standards
> for use by all the PWG WGs doing IEEE-ISTO standards. Here
> is version 0.2 as a strawman.
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-latest.pdf
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-latest.doc
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>> Ira and I made some simplifications in it as part of making
> version 0.2 over the IEEE-ISTO style as documents below in
> Appendix C which also described why we made each change. Ira
> and I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone else about many
> of these simplifications.
>> ISSUE: So an imporant issue is whether these simplifications
> are OK or do we need to rigorously follow the IEEE-ISTO
> standard style?
>> The rest of version 0.2 is incorporating the detailed commens
> that Dennis Carney had made as a result of trying to use a
> template while he wrote up his "-actuals" IPP specification.
>> There is a companion document: "Tips for Good Technical
> Writing" which I moved from the Appendix to a separate
> document available at:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-> latest.pdf
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-> latest.doc
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>> Please send comments.
>> Thanks,
> Tom
>>> Appendix C Differences between this Template and the
> IEEE-ISTO standard
> style
> This Appendix lists the differences between this Template and
> the IEEE/ISTO standard style and explains why. The IEEE-ISTO
> standard style is represented in the IEEE/ISTO 5101.1 Media
> Name Standard. These differences have evolved after
> experience using the IEEE/ISTO standard style for online
> viewing and printing with Adobe Acrobat. The differences are
> (working top to bottom):
> 1. Merged the redundant second page (which had the
> Abstract)
> onto the first page and got rid of the second page. Our
> understanding is that having two title pages comes from
> publishing the document in printed form, where the first page
> is like a cover. Most standards bodies have eliminated the
> cover so that the Abstract appears on the first page.
> 2. Added "(PWG)" after "The Printer Working Group" in
the
> title.
> 3. Removed the redundant indications of whether
> this version is
> a Working Draft, a Proposed Standard, a Draft Standard, or a
> Standard from the Header. Only the title indicates the
> status. A Working Draft has: "Working Draft for a PWG
> Proposed Standard". A Proposed Standard after passing WG
> Last Call will have: "PWG Proposed Standard". A Draft
> Standard after passing WG Last Call will have: "PWG Draft
> Standard". A Standard after passing PWG Last Call will have:
> "PWG Standard"
> 4. Added the URL for the document on the first
> page, so that it
> is easy to find.
> 5. Added Editor's name(s) to the first page, so that
proper
> credit is given as is common in some standards bodies.
> 6. Simplified the headers and footers, so that the
> headers are
> all the same except for the first page. Keeping the headers
> and footers simple will reduce errors in producing drafts and
> allow editor's to focus on content more and format less.
> 7. The Left side of the Header is blank for Working
Drafts,
> then gets IEEE-ISTO 51nn.n after the Working Draft passes WG
> Last Call. Thus the editor only changes the Header once, when
> the specification passes Last Call.
> 8. In the Header, the Title is centered with most
> of the fixed
> parts removed.
> 9. In the Header, the page number is always on the
> right. The
> IEEE-ISTO format did not have the page number on the top at
> all, which has proved a problem when viewing the
> specification with Adobe Acrobat, when the user can only see
> part of the page at one time. Also scrolling upwards and
> downwards needs the page numbers to be at the top and bottom.
> 10. The Footer follows the IEEE-ISTO style, except the
page
> number is always centered, instead of alternating left and
> right. This makes it easier to spot the page number when
> viewing it on the screen.
> 11. Page numbers in the Header and Footer, start at
> 1 with the
> first page. No Roman numerals are used. This makes it
> easier to relate pages as numbered by Adobe Acrobat and those
> printing on each page and in the Table of Contents. Also
> when printing out selected pages, the page number used by the
> Printer driver agree with the printed page numbers.
> 12. Defined the Body Text style to use ragged
> right, rather than
> justified, in order to make the document more readable by
> people when printed or displayed though it may not look as pretty.
> 13. Added editor names for PWG standards in the
References
> section, as is practice in some standards bodies and most
> technical publications.
> 14. Removed the first initials from references and
used only
> family names as is becoming practice to avoid the cultural
> confusion about whether family names come first or last.
>> Here is the change log:
> Changes to make version 0.2, January 27, 2003
> The following changes were made to create version 0.2,
> January 27, 2003 after careful review by Dennis Carney and
> Ira McDonald:
> 1. Generalized the template so that it can be for any
PWG
> standard, not just IPP.
> 2. Simplified the template so that as few fields
> as possible
> have to be updated as the specification progresses through
> the process - otherwise everyone does it differently.
> 3. Follow the IEEE-ISTO style with the exceptions
listed in
> Appendix C derived from experience viewing and printing
> on-line versions using Adobe Acrobat.
> 4. Explained the file naming scheme for PWG WGs.
> 5. Added the requirements for a Logical Diagram and a
> Configuration Diagrams and showed some IPP examples.
> 6. Highlighted IPP specific instructions and
> examples in green,
> like this, in order to give real examples, but make the
> Template work for all PWG Working Groups
> 7. Added RFC 3380, 3381, 3382.
> 8. Added a number of terms that may be useful to
> PWG projects
> other than IPP.
> 9. Moved the Appendix "Tips for Good Technical
> Writing" to a
> separate document available at:
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-latest.pdf