PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron

PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron

PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron

Farrell, Lee Lee.Farrell at
Thu Jan 30 21:32:58 EST 2003

[If people can understand "jumbo shrimp" without losing sleep, I don't see why "draft standard" would cause a problem.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: pwg at
Subject: Re: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron

Er... Um... so why is it so hard to put the definition to use and realize that a "Draft Standard" is a preliminary version of a "Standard"? 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 

	"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at> 
Sent by: owner-pwg at 

01/30/2003 04:24 PM 

        To:        pwg at 
        Subject:        PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron

Here is why I think that "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron.  Draft is too
fleeting.  Standard is meant to be more stable.

So I looked up the word "Draft" in the dictionary.  Webster's Seventh
Collegiate Dictionary says:

"a preliminary sketch, outline, or version".

We all use the word "draft" (or "working draft") to mean the document that
we update rapidly to get to a version that we all consider stable enough to
have a Last Call.

So one of the appealing suggestions made at today's call was to just remove
section 3.4 Draft Standard and have only 3.4 Proposed Standard and 3.6
Standard.  Both have to have a series of drafts to be reviewed to lead up to
being an approved Proposed Standard or an approved Standard.  And both need
to have a draft that is considered good enough to both trying a Last Call
and then the Last Call has to actually pass.

I think much of our trouble is terminology, so fixing the terminology, and
deleting a step seems to be a good thing to do and is NOT abandoning the
process or overturning turnips.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Pwg mailing list