Ira,
You misunderstand. It is not that I find the more rigorous and abstract document unacceptable. Quite to the contrary, I respect the advantages of an unambiguous document and I very much appreciate your extensive efforts in this area.
However, although I believe that WIMS addresses a definite need which will provide superior service advantages to end users, a larger market and more efficient operation to service providers, and greater sales to imaging equipment producers, we have not seen great participation or interest from any level of the industry. This may be because my belief is incorrect or because we have not sufficiently publicized our effort. And however correct and in line with PWG standards we make the protocol document, I think it is a dry, abstract and unexciting document that is unlikely to capture the interest of potential implementers or users.
The intent and utilization of the Counter Spec is somewhat easier to understand, although I am concerned about mustering up the needed quorum to approve this document.
My comment was to solicit comments on whether a more illustrative document (perhaps just a white paper) might be more useful in conveying the potential applications of this protocol. As such, the question of formal vote is moot.
By the way, I do not agree with your comments on the Implementers Guides. Indeed, it is possible that a more "accessible" presentation on IPP may have allowed it to better realize its potential rather than being just another and comparatively little used print protocol. But then, I may very well be wrong there too.
Bill Wagner
-------------- Original message --------------
> Hi Bill,
>> The Rationale and Requirements that you find unacceptable in the
> WIMS spec were directly taken (with extensions where needed) from
> the same section of the PWG Imaging System Counters spec which is
> in Formal Vote (i.e., has completed Last Call and updates).
>> Presumably your objections apply equally to the Counter spec?
>> An informal Scenarios document could certainly be written. But
> the PWG Process would NOT permit it to be adopted via Formal Vote,
> because it would not meet the PWG Process requirements for the
> content of an approved Protocol Requirements spec.
>> I have little faith in the value of 'informal documents'. There
> is no evidence that anyone ever read the two versions of the IPP
> Implementors Guide except the editors of same.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> phone: +1-906-494-2434
> email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
>wamwagner at comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:56 PM
> To: 'wims at pwg.org'
> Subject: WIMS> No WIMS Teleconference Wednesday 31 August
>>> Sorry I did not get out the minutes from last week's WIMS Protocol
> Teleconference. (I left my notes in Massachusetts) Main points were:
>> 1. There were no objections to Ira's Requirements section
> 2. There were objections to the way the figures translate to PDF. Jerry
> offered to reformat them.
> 3. In transforming Ira's requirements section to MS Word, I had made some
> global changes that inadventently when into the draft as a whole.These made
> reading a bit difficult. Since no one else commented on these rather gross
> anomalies, it is safe to assume no one read the draft.
> 4. Ira had a set of additional changes he felt were necessary, including a
> new chapter 5.
> 5. The potential changes to the document made review prior to the changes of
> questionable value.
> 6. With Rick not in attendance, discussion of extensions to support
> manager-initiated management did not seem appropriate.
>> With these considerations, we decided to skip the Wednesday 31 August
> meeting.
>> I have posted the updated spec with the global error corrected, Jerry's
> revised pictures, and Ira's "to do list" at
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wd-wims10-20050830.pdf.>> Although Ira's requirements section and proposed changes make the spec a
> more rigorously valid document, they also abstract the protocol, it's
> purposes and the way it is intended to work to such an extent that I wonder
> whether anyone will invest the energy needed to understand it. I would
> propose that, if indeed there is any interest in the idea, a non rigorous,
> semi-technical, document on the order of the Scenarios be considered.
>> Bill Wagner
>> Chairman, WIMS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20050831/23ddac32/attachment-0001.html