Thanks, Bill. To use a contemporary analogy, we flip-flopped so many times
I guess I missed the final resolution on where to put the binding specs.
I will post an amended version which includes your observations.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"Wagner,William" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>
Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org
10/21/2004 11:28 AM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, <wims at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
RE: WIMS> Conference Call mins - 10/20/2004
Thanks Harry.
I would add that the discussion of bindings settled on the binding being a
separate document, not an appendix.
Other items of potential interest are that the IBM UML sequence diagram(s)
would be incorporated in the general section of the spec., that we had
some discomfort with the size and effort of the WIMS Object spec effort as
well as the fact that it reverts to schema as normative documentation, and
that it may be time to reactivate the Requirements document effort.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:16 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> Conference Call mins - 10/20/2004
Minutes are posted
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/minutes/wims_041020.pdf
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20041021/20f10d43/attachment-0001.html