-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 03:03
To: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> RE: SM> Updated Process [my comments]
Harry,
Here are my comments:
1. Section 3.3 PWG Proposed Standard and elsewhere:
I like your proposed change of terminology from "PWG Working Draft" to "PWG
Working Material" for the successive versions of a specification that lead
up to a Last Call and a PWG Proposed Standard.. The term "PWG Working
Material" can't be confused with the second stage of a PWG standard: a "PWG
Draft Standard". I assume that any PWG project that also produces other
forms of output in addition to a specification, such as a schema is part of
the PWG Proposed Standard, not a separate Standard, right? Also this means
that any Schema has to have an accompanying specification. No schemas by
themselves.
1a. There are a number of places where the old term "Working Draft" still
exists, including Process Summary and Figure in Section 9.
All occurrences of "Working Draft" need to be changed to "Working Material".
2. Section 3.5 PWG Staandard and elsewhere:
Ira and I would like to propose putting some adjective in front of Standard
for the final stage, such as "Final". So instead of having:
PWG Proposed Standard
PWG Draft Standard
PWG Standard,
we have:
PWG Proposed Standard
PWG Draft Standard
PWG Final Standard
Then the term Standard by itself can be used to discuss any of PWG Proposed
Standard, PWG Draft Standard, or PWG Final Standard, rather than being
ambiguous as to whether "Standard" means all three or just the last one.
3. Sections 3.3 PWG Proposed Standard, 3.4 PWG Draft Standard, and 3.5
[Final] Standard
The comparison with the corresonding IETF standards is very similar as
follows:
3.3: PWG Working Material is equivalent to an IETF Internet Draft.
A PWG Proposed Standard is equivalent to an IETF Proposed Standard.
3.4: A PWG Draft Standard is equivalent to an IETF Draft Standard.
3.5: A PWG [Final] Standard is equivalent to an IETF Standard.
These statements should be made in parallel fashion in sections 3.3, 3.4,
and 3.5, preferably in separate paragraphs, so that they aren't mixed in
with our descriptions.
Or put them together into a separate section, like the deleted section 3.6.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 21:09
To: pwg at pwg.org
Cc: sm at pwg.org
Subject: SM> Updated Process
In prep for a discussion during the SM call, tomorrow, I've updated the PWG
process document.
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process-030128.doc>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process-030128.doc
This is a one-time notification to both reflectors. Further on-line
discussion of the PWG process with occur ONLY on pwg at pwg.org
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/sm/attachments/20030130/339d7aef/attachment-0001.html