Duh.
[If people can understand "jumbo shrimp" without losing sleep, I don't see why "draft standard" would cause a problem.]
lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Er... Um... so why is it so hard to put the definition to use and realize that a "Draft Standard" is a preliminary version of a "Standard"?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg at pwg.org
01/30/2003 04:24 PM
To: pwg at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Here is why I think that "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron. Draft is too
fleeting. Standard is meant to be more stable.
So I looked up the word "Draft" in the dictionary. Webster's Seventh
Collegiate Dictionary says:
"a preliminary sketch, outline, or version".
We all use the word "draft" (or "working draft") to mean the document that
we update rapidly to get to a version that we all consider stable enough to
have a Last Call.
So one of the appealing suggestions made at today's call was to just remove
section 3.4 Draft Standard and have only 3.4 Proposed Standard and 3.6
Standard. Both have to have a series of drafts to be reviewed to lead up to
being an approved Proposed Standard or an approved Standard. And both need
to have a draft that is considered good enough to both trying a Last Call
and then the Last Call has to actually pass.
I think much of our trouble is terminology, so fixing the terminology, and
deleting a step seems to be a good thing to do and is NOT abandoning the
process or overturning turnips.
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20030130/65fab9c4/attachment-0001.html