I thought the XHTML Print documents were going to be published as W3C
standards. Unless that has changed, why do we need ISTO numbers?
We have not assigned any ISTO numbers to the IPP documents published
as IETF RFCs.
As for IPPFAX, it would seem logical that they would be in the 5100
series to emphasize the relationship to IPP. That is, unless we
want to try to distance it from IPP.
If the 5102 series is defined for languages, then PDF/is belongs in
Likewise, we could say 5101 is a "general category", and the PWG
semantic model could be included here. The Character Repertoires
may also fit in this group.
PSI does appear to be unique enough to be assigned a new series.
(Just some of my thoughts to add to the confusion!)
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:23 PM
To: Lewis, Harry
Cc: pwg at pwg.org
Subject: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard
Per the discussion today at the SM telecon on PWG process about standards
numbers and what to do about allocating a PWG number for the Proposed PWG
XHTML/Print standard as requested by Don for the W3C.
In order to give Don a PWG number for the XHTML/Print Proposed PWG Standard,
the next series of numbers not yet used is 5102.n.
Currently, Proposed PWG standards have the following numbers:
5100.1, 5100.2, 5100.3, 5100.4 ... for IPP
5101.1 for the Media Standardized Names
So how about 5102.1 for XHTML/Print. If there are several documents, 5102.1
ISSUE: How to number future standards? We can decide later how to allocate
PWG Semantic Model
Print Services Interface
Is the 5102 series for document formats, so that PDF/is would go in that
Should IPPFAX go in its own series, or should it be in the IPP 5100.n
Should PWG Semantic Model be in its own series?
Should PSI be in its own series?
Or is there some common theme that would help put some of these in the same
ISSUE: Separate isssue is what happens when the Proposed/Candidate Standard
Does it get a new number or use the same number? If a new number could it
be some algorithm from its original number, such as adding 50. So 5150.2
would be the Standard version of Proposed standard 5100.2.