PWG> RE: SM> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed St andards

PWG> RE: SM> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed St andards

PWG> RE: SM> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed St andards

Ron.Bergman at Ron.Bergman at
Thu Jan 30 12:12:27 EST 2003


I suspect that very few members are going to have an interest in this
topic.  But since I have been through some of the pain when I worked on
the Media Names standard, here is my two cents.

Most of your proposal will require approval by the ISTO, regardless of
what the PWG membership decides.  Everyone should be aware that any
decisions are not final until the ISTO approves.  If you recall the
conversation we had with Cindy Tiritilli, over a year ago, when we
submitted the Media Names standard for publication.  She stated that
the ISTO required a common format and appearance from all ISTO member
groups.  The Nexus documents was provided as their template for all
future documents.  She even stated that the PWG documents 5100.1 to 
5100.4 were not in compliance and MUST be resubmitted in the required
format.  (The group is still delinquent on this requirement.)

The current ISTO template is a very close match to the IEEE format so
it is reasonable to assume that they will resist most changes.  Also,
with the large number of changes you are proposing, they are more 
likely to simply reject all rather than consider any.  I suggest that
all your proposed changes be re-examined and only those that we 
consider "important" be presented to the ISTO.

Your changes appear to fall into two categories; template and content.
The content changes should be transparent to the ISTO and I propose
that this group of changes need not be discussed unless they bring
up the subject following their review.

See my comments on each of your proposals below.

	Ron Bergman
	Hitachi Printing Solutions America

-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings at]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:19 PM
To: pwg at
Cc: sm at
Subject: SM> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed

In case there is time at the end of the SM telecon tomorrow, Thursday, Jan
30, 1-2 PM EST (10-11 PST) after we discuss the PWG Process, here is a
Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG Proposed Standards.

This is a one-time notification to both reflectors. Further on-line
discussion of the PWG Template with occur ONLY on pwg at, NOT on the
sm at (same as for any other PWG process discussion). 

Dennis Carney, Ira McDonald, Ron Bergman, and I have been working on an
MS-WORD template for PWG IEEE-ISTO standards for use by all the PWG WGs
doing IEEE-ISTO standards.  Here is version 0.2 as a strawman.

Ira and I made some simplifications in it as part of making version 0.2 over
the IEEE-ISTO style as documents below in Appendix C which also described
why we made each change.  Ira and I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone
else about many of these simplifications.  

ISSUE:  So an imporant issue is whether these simplifications are OK or do
we need to rigorously follow the IEEE-ISTO standard style?  

The rest of version 0.2 is incorporating the detailed commens that Dennis
Carney had made as a result of trying to use a template while he wrote up
his "-actuals" IPP specification. 

There is a companion document: "Tips for Good Technical Writing" which I
moved from the Appendix to a separate document available at:

Please send comments.


Appendix C	Differences between this Template and the IEEE-ISTO standard
This Appendix lists the differences between this Template and the IEEE/ISTO
standard style and explains why.  The IEEE-ISTO standard style is
represented in the IEEE/ISTO 5101.1 Media Name Standard.  These differences
have evolved after experience using the IEEE/ISTO standard style for online
viewing and printing with Adobe Acrobat.  The differences are (working top
to bottom):
	1.	Merged the redundant second page (which had the Abstract)
onto the first page and got rid of the second page.  Our understanding is
that having two title pages comes from publishing the document in printed
form, where the first page is like a cover.  Most standards bodies have
eliminated the cover so that the Abstract appears on the first page.
RON>> I like this change and this is one that we should present to the
      ISTO.  I guess that they like the "cover page" so they can provide
      printed copies, since that is one of the IEEE profit centers.  We
      could compromise by providing a separate "cover page" PDF to use
      if printed copies are ever (even though highly unlikely) created.  
      Most IEEE electronic documents do not have this extra cover page.

	2.	Added "(PWG)" after "The Printer Working Group" in the
RON>> This is a content change.

	3.	Removed the redundant indications of whether this version is
a Working Draft, a Proposed Standard, a Draft Standard, or a Standard from
the Header.  Only the title indicates the status.  A Working Draft has:
"Working Draft for a PWG Proposed Standard".  A Proposed Standard after
passing WG Last Call will have: "PWG Proposed Standard".  A Draft Standard
after passing WG Last Call will have: "PWG Draft Standard".  A Standard
after passing PWG Last Call will have:  "PWG Standard"
RON>> This is a content change.  Working drafts can be in whatever format 
      desired by the PWG.

	4.	Added the URL for the document on the first page, so that it
is easy to find.
RON>> This is a content change.

	5.	Added Editor's name(s) to the first page, so that proper
credit is given as is common in some standards bodies.
RON>> This is a content change.

	6.	Simplified the headers and footers, so that the headers are
all the same except for the first page.  Keeping the headers and footers
simple will reduce errors in producing drafts and allow editor's to focus on
content more and format less. 
RON>> I don't see a real advantage to do this as it makes the PWG documents
      very different from all other IEEE specs and may be rejected by the 
      ISTO.  I don't know why you feel the ISTO approved headers are too
	7.	The Left side of the Header is blank for Working Drafts,
then gets IEEE-ISTO 51nn.n after the Working Draft passes WG Last Call.
Thus the editor only changes the Header once, when the specification passes
Last Call.  
RON>> This is a content change.  Working drafts can be in whatever format 
      desired by the PWG.  I would prefer to see "Draft" or some other 
      positive indication that this is a working document where the
      "IEEE-ISTO 51nn.n" would normally appear.

	8.	In the Header, the Title is centered with most of the fixed
parts removed.
RON>> See next comment.

	9.	In the Header, the page number is always on the right.  The
IEEE-ISTO format did not have the page number on the top at all, which has
proved a problem when viewing the specification with Adobe Acrobat, when the
user can only see part of the page at one time.  Also scrolling upwards and
downwards needs the page numbers to be at the top and bottom.
RON>> I don't understand the need for this.  I use Acrobat all the time to
      read documents and use the page number window at the bottom of the
      screen to determine what page I am on for the few times I really need
      to know.  I have also viewed PDF documents that show the actual page
      numbers where the boiler plate section uses Roman numerals.  This may
      be a part of Acrobat 5.

	10.	The Footer follows the IEEE-ISTO style, except the page
number is always centered, instead of alternating left and right.  This
makes it easier to spot the page number when viewing it on the screen.
RON>> See above.

	11.	Page numbers in the Header and Footer, start at 1 with the
first page.  No Roman numerals are used.  This makes it easier to relate
pages as numbered by Adobe Acrobat and those printing on each page and in
the Table of Contents.  Also when printing out selected pages, the page
number used by the Printer driver agree with the printed page numbers.
RON>> Why rock the boat on this one.  See above.

	12.	Defined the Body Text style to use ragged right, rather than
justified, in order to make the document more readable by people when
printed or displayed though it may not look as pretty.
RON>> This is a content change.  I don't understand why this makes a
      document more readable, but this can be editors choice.

	13.	Added editor names for PWG standards in the References
section, as is practice in some standards bodies and most technical
RON>> This is a content change?  Aren't we already doing this?

	14.	Removed the first initials from references and used only
family names as is becoming practice to avoid the cultural confusion about
whether family names come first or last.
RON>> This is a content change.

Here is the change log:
	Changes to make version 0.2, January 27, 2003
The following changes were made to create version 0.2, January 27, 2003
after careful review by Dennis Carney and Ira McDonald:
	1.	Generalized the template so that it can be for any PWG
standard, not just IPP.
	2.	Simplified the template so that as few fields as possible
have to be updated as the specification progresses through the process -
otherwise everyone does it differently.
	3.	Follow the IEEE-ISTO style with the exceptions listed in
Appendix C derived from experience viewing and printing on-line versions
using Adobe Acrobat.
	4.	Explained the file naming scheme for PWG WGs.
	5.	Added the requirements for a Logical Diagram and a
Configuration Diagrams and showed some IPP examples.
	6.	Highlighted IPP specific instructions and examples in green,
like this, in order to give real examples, but make the Template work for
all PWG Working Groups
	7.	Added RFC 3380, 3381, 3382.
	8.	Added a number of terms that may be useful to PWG projects
other than IPP.
	9.	Moved the Appendix "Tips for Good Technical Writing" to a
separate document available at:

More information about the Pwg mailing list