I feel Tom's write-up, while similar, is an improvement to my
recommendation so I vote we go with Tom's approach for naming ISTO drafts
prior to approval.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg-announce at pwg.org
10/24/2002 01:20 PM
To: pwg-announce at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Agreements on not numbering
IEEE-ISTO drafts until approved (and file names to use in the meantime)
NOTE: Please send any comments on this note to the pwg at pwg.org, instead
of a Reply-ALL. We don't want to use PWG-ANNOUNCE for discussion threads,
just announcements.
Harry has pointed out that we shouldn't number PWG standards with
IEEE-ISTO numbers, either in the file name or on the first page and page
headers until they are approved (past PWG Last Call). Then we avoid
leaving holes in the numbering space and mis-leading readers into thinking
that a draft is an approved standard. Also the file names can be more
meaningful while they are drafts.
At the PWG Semantic Model call today with a lot of attendees, we agreed to
remove the numbers from the next drafts and use the new file naming scheme
and the old copy should be deleted from the PWG site. If a document isn't
being updated in the next couple of weeks, then the existing document
should be renamed on the PWG site.
On the first page and page headers, instead of the IEEE-ISTO number, put
5100.x for IPP documents and 510n.y for documents for new categories, such
as IPPFAX, that haven't any documents approved.
For a file naming scheme for drafts before they are approved, the file
names for PWG documents intending to become IEEE-ISTO documents, we agreed
to the following simple file naming scheme:
pwg-group-aaa-bbb-Vnn-yymmdd.doc, .pdf
pwg-group-aaa-bbb-Vnn-yymmdd-rev.doc, .pdf, red-lined versions
where:
pwg indicates a pwg document
group indicates the group and probably is the short DL name, i.e, ipp, sm,
ifx, psi, etc.
aaa-bbb are meaningful words or abbreviations (see below, but keep it
fairly short so the file URL don't line wrap in email)
Vnn is the version number starting at V01 and incrementing by one (authors
can increment the date for the same version while yymmdd is the year month
and day, so that they sort in ascending order by date.
No underlines, since they look like spaces in underlined URLs
No spaces, since they don't work in some systems.
In order to make the web site for each project point to a stable URL, each
document should be copies twice to the PWG site with the stable file name
being:
pwg-group-aaa-bbb-latest.doc, .pdf
where the rest of the file name before the latest is invariant with
successive versions and is the same pwg-group-aaa-bbb as the file name
that has the version number and the date.
(We need to update the IPP web page to use the durable URL and start
posting file twice so the the IPP web page is as good as the other PWG
groups in always pointing to the latest draft of each document).
Here are some suggested names for the existing IEEE-ISTO versions of PWG
IPP documents showing their existing URL and the suggested URL on the
following line:
1. IEEE-ISTO 5100.5-2002 [doc-obj], “Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP): Document Object, Hastings, T. and P. Zehler, September 7, 2002,
work in progress, ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/
new_DOC/IPP-Document-Object-020927.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/new_DOC/pwg-ipp-document-object-V01-020927.pdf
2. IEEE-ISTO 5100.6-2002 [not-srv], “Distributed Notification
Service”, Hastings, T., Lewis, H., and I. McDonald, October 3, 2002, work
in progress, ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/
new_NOT/ipp-dist-not-service-021003-rev.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/
new_NOT/pwg-ipp-dist-not-service-V01-021003-rev.pdf
3. IEEE-ISTO 5100.7-2002 [prod-print2], “Production Printing
Attributes – Set 2”, Hastings, T., and D. Fullman, September 27, 2002,
work in progress, ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/
new_PPE/pwg-ipp-prod-print-set2-020927.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/new_PPE/pwg-ipp-prod-print-set2-V01-020927.pdf
4. IEEE-ISTO 5100.8-2002 [color], “Color and Imaging Attributes”,
Hastings, T., and D. Fullman, October 8, 2002, work in progress,
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/new_COLOR/pwg-ipp-color-and-imaging-021008.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/new_COLOR/
pwg-ipp-color-and-imaging-D01-021008.pdf
5. IEEE-ISTO 5100.9-2002 [actual] Internet Printing Protocol (IPP),
“-actual” attributes extension, Carney, D., and H. Lewis, work in
progress, October 18, 2002.
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/new_ACT/pwg-ipp-actual-attributes-V01-021018.pdf
And the following two have not yet been published at all and will be
published without numbers using the agreed scheme:
6. IEEE-ISTO 5100.10-2002 [mime-parm] Internet Printing Protocol
(IPP), “PWG MIME Standard parameters for Document Formats”, McDonald, I,
and T. Hastings, work in progress
ftp://ftp.pwg/org/pub/pwg/new_MIMEPARM/pwg-ipp-mime-parm-D01-yymmdd.pdf
7. IEEE-ISTO 5100.11-2002 [pnsp], “Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):
Distributed Notification Service - Printer to Notification Server Protocol
(PNSP)”, I. McDonald, <draft-mcdonald-ipp-dist-not-pnsp-00.txt>, work in
progress, September 25, 2002.
ftp://ftp.pwg/org/pub/pwg/new_NOT/pwg-ipp-pnsp-D01-yymmdd.pdf
The IPPFAX documents should use the above scheme for the IPPFAX Protocol
and PDFax documents (and UIF put into historical), instead of using 5102.1
for IPP FAX protocol, 5102.2 for UIF and 5102.3 for PDFax. So their
numbers would be:
510n.x and file name, say, pwg-ifx-protocol-V12-yymmdd.doc and
pwg-ifx-pdfax-V03-yymmdd.doc
On a related note to PWG process, Rick Seeler points out that according
to our PWG process, all of the above documents should be labeled as
versions of PWG Proposed Standards, not PWG Draft Standards.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 08:56
To: imcdonald at sharplabs.com; hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com; Dennis Carney
Cc: don at lexmark.com
Subject: Recent ISTO drafts
Guys... I'm not sure we should be grabbing numbers (ex.5100.10) for
DRAFTS! The process should recognize that a draft may not be approved. The
number should probably be assigned AFTER approval.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/pwg/attachments/20021031/4793ce1b/attachment-0001.html