me too
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com]
Sent: Wed 4/14/2004 2:06 PM
To: thrasher at lexmark.com; pwg at pwg.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment
Good idea -- it works for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
thrasher at lexmark.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:11 AM
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment
I have a suggestion for modifying the "Maturity Level" (section 4.5.1)
of the current process document.
As I have been starting to update the older approved PWG documents I
noticed that the Maturity Level is currently not supposed to be included
on a Candidate Standard or Standard.....although on some of the recently
approved documents it is.....
I'm looking for a way to indicate that PWG 5100.4-2001 is obsolete
(other than a background watermark...).
when I update the links and front matter.
Suggestion:
Change the "Maturity Level" to "Status"...and add "Approved" and
"Obsolete"
or "Obsoleted by...." as kewords to be used on Candidate Standards and
Standards.
So the "Status" of a Working Draft or other PWG documents would be
Initial, Interim, Prototype, and Stable.
The "Status" of a Candidate Standard/Standard/other approvable documents
would be Approved, or Obsolete....
Here's a copy of this applied to the update of PWG5100.1........as well
as the updated cover matter."
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/example_pwg5100.1.pdf
Comments??
JT