Hi Tom
We're speaking at cross purposes on filenames for working drafts
(possibly because you were unable to attend any of the telecons
where we discussed this).
The FORMER practice of including the (IETF-like) version of a
working draft in the PWG spec filename has been abandoned.
The new (W3C-like) practice is that the version in the filename
is INVARIANT and represents the TARGET version of the adopted
spec (like 'psi10' for PSI/1.0). Only the DATE of the filename
indicates successive working draft "versions".
Further, the 'ipp-xxx-Vyy' naming breaks the (desirable)
quality that a working draft filename has EXACTLY three
components (separated by hyphens) to allow programmatic
access by scripts:
(1) 'wd' - to indicate a PWG Working Draft status
(2) 'tag' - the spec acronym suffixed with the target
major/minor version for the adopted spec
(3) 'date' - the YYYYMMDD format unique document date
The long names of 'ipp-document-object' (for example) are
unacceptable because they become part of the durable
permanent name of the adopted PWG Standard. The W3C
practice is to assign a unique SHORT mnemonic to any
given spec, for example 'psi10' for the PSI/1.0 Protocol
Spec and 'psidev10' for PSI/1.0 Developers Guide, or
'ippdoc10' for IPP Document Object/1.0. Note that EACH
IPP (or other) extension has it's own INDEPENDENT stable
version (such as '10' for '1.0'), which is NOT related
to the version of IPP being extended.
Cheers
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:37 PM
To: Harry Lewis
Cc: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> PWG Process update [comment on file naming scheme]
Harry,
Its good to get the filenaming scheme into the process document.
ISSUE 01: There is confusion as to what the "XYZ", "xyz", and "/ps/" in the
file name table means. Which are something that varies with WG and/or
specification and which are "constants"? So the Table needs some
explanation.
For example, some have interpreted the XYZ to be the acronym for the WG,
such as SM or PSI. If so, then the current proposal has a flaw: It only
works for a WG that is producing a single specification.
The PWG process document URL current pattern is:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ps/wd/wd-xyz10-20020115.doc
ISSUE 02: I assumed that /ps/ was the example for the PSI WG, rather than
being a constant for all WGs, such as "Proposed Standards", right?
Howver, for IPP where we have produced 32 different documents, we need to be
able to put something into the file name to distinguish each document. Also
I think that a WG should have more freedom to have separate sub-directories
for separate Working Draft specifications, still under the /wd/
sub-directory for all WDs for that WG.
For example, for the IPP Document Object Working Draft, I'd like its URL to
be:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_DOC/wd-ipp-document-object-v07-20030301.do
c, .pdf, .htm
rather than:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ipp07-20030301.doc, .pdf, .htm
And perhaps better than /new_ABC/ sub-directories like we currently do, have
all of the sub-directories that hold Working Drafts under /wd/ with further
sub-directories for each individual specification /wd/abc/ (all lower case
and without the "new_" prefix so we'd have for the Document Object and
Actual Attributes specifications:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/doc/wd-ipp-document-object-v07-20030301.doc
, .pdf, .htm
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/act/wd-ipp-actual-attrs-v04-030131.doc,
.pdf, .htm
ISSUE 03: Add "-v" before the version number. I want the version number to
collate ahead of the date but after the rest of the file name. This is
because editors often make several edits before publishing an updated
version (incremented by 1). I also like taking up two more position to
include the "-v" to help make it clear that the magic number is a version
number and not something else.
So for the Semantic Model WG and its Semantic Model specification, we have
something like:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/sm/wd/wd-semantic-model-v020-20030130
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 21:42
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> PWG Process update
An update has been posted. Thanks to Dennis for adding some corrections,
observations and pointing out some issues (yellow). We've also added a
diagram like we had in the old process. Hope it is helpful.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030221.doc
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------