attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes, I will (obviously) need to carve
a large time slot in the plenary for said process discussions!</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">----------------------------------------------
<br>
Harry Lewis <br>
IBM Printing Systems <br>
---------------------------------------------- </font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-cr@pwg.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/13/2003 01:41 PM</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To:
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc:
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>,
pzehler@crt.xerox.com, cr@pwg.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject:
CR> PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number
for Proposed XHTML/Print standard</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Harry,<br>
<br>
Apropos of this, I wanted to let you know the latest ideas for Character<br>
Repertoires.<br>
<br>
As decided at Maui, we plan to create a standards track document that can<br>
be referenced by the semantic model. This will describe a SM element
that<br>
is used to advertise the repertoires supported by a device.<br>
<br>
We will, at some future point, want to assign a PWG number to this. I
will<br>
do my best to follow the existing process, then cut over to the new one<br>
when it is official. One problem is that we don't have a formal chartered<br>
CR group. Since this standard may be our entire work, I don't know
that we<br>
need to go through chartering.<br>
<br>
Options are:<br>
-do a CR charter<br>
-create this document under some other group<br>
-some sort of "individual submission" scheme<br>
<br>
Should we discuss this at the plenary?<br>
<br>
E.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
Elliott Bradshaw<br>
Director, Software Engineering<br>
Oak Technology Imaging Group<br>
781 638-7534<br>
<br>
----- Forwarded by Elliott Bradshaw/oaktech/us on 03/13/2003 03:36 PM -----<br>
<br>
"Hastings,
Tom N"
<br>
<hastings@cp10.es.
To: "Lewis, Harry" <harryl@us.ibm.com>
<br>
xerox.com>
cc: pwg@pwg.org
<br>
Sent
by: Subject:
PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed <br>
owner-pwg@pwg.org
XHTML/Print standard
<br>
<br>
<br>
03/13/2003
03:22
<br>
PM
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Harry,<br>
<br>
Per the discussion today at the SM telecon on PWG process about standards<br>
numbers and what to do about allocating a PWG number for the Proposed PWG<br>
XHTML/Print standard as requested by Don for the W3C.<br>
<br>
In order to give Don a PWG number for the XHTML/Print Proposed PWG<br>
Standard,<br>
the next series of numbers not yet used is 5102.n.<br>
<br>
Currently, Proposed PWG standards have the following numbers:<br>
<br>
5100.1, 5100.2, 5100.3, 5100.4 ... for IPP<br>
<br>
5101.1 for the Media Standardized Names<br>
<br>
So how about 5102.1 for XHTML/Print. If there are several documents,<br>
5102.1<br>
and 5102.2<br>
<br>
<br>
ISSUE: How to number future standards? We can decide later
how to<br>
allocate<br>
numbers for:<br>
<br>
PWG Semantic Model<br>
Print Services Interface<br>
IPPFAX<br>
PDF/is<br>
etc.<br>
<br>
Is the 5102 series for document formats, so that PDF/is would go in that<br>
series?<br>
<br>
Should IPPFAX go in its own series, or should it be in the IPP 5100.n<br>
series?<br>
<br>
Should PWG Semantic Model be in its own series?<br>
<br>
Should PSI be in its own series?<br>
<br>
Or is there some common theme that would help put some of these in the
same<br>
series.<br>
<br>
<br>
ISSUE: Separate isssue is what happens when the Proposed/Candidate<br>
Standard<br>
reaches Standard?<br>
<br>
Does it get a new number or use the same number? If a new number
could it<br>
be some algorithm from its original number, such as adding 50. So
5150.2<br>
would be the Standard version of Proposed standard 5100.2.<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>