PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard

PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard

PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO number for Proposed XHTML/Print standard

don at lexmark.com don at lexmark.com
Thu Mar 13 16:24:04 EST 2003


Ron, et al:

We are requesting numbers for the XHTML-Print and CSS Profile documents as
stakes in the ground.  There is no guarantee that the W3C will ever take
them to its "Recommendation" status.  Having the PWG stakes in the ground
will provide early implementors with stable documents and can be easily
referenced.  Should the W3C drop the ball on this (not that I think they
will but you never know), the PWG can always drive these from
Proposed/Candidate status to Full Standard status.

**********************************************
 Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

 Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
 Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
 f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org

 Director, Alliances & Standards
 Lexmark International
 740 New Circle Rd
 Lexington, Ky 40550
 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************



Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us@pwg.org on 03/13/2003 04:22:03 PM

Sent by:    owner-pwg at pwg.org


To:    hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com, harryl at us.ibm.com
cc:    pwg at pwg.org
Subject:    RE: PWG> PWG IEEE-ISTO  number for Proposed XHTML/Print
       standard


Tom,

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
this group.

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!)

 Ron

-----Original Message-----
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


Harry,

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
and 5102.2


ISSUE:  How to number future standards?  We can decide later how to
allocate
numbers for:

PWG Semantic Model
Print Services Interface
IPPFAX
PDF/is
etc.

Is the 5102 series for document formats, so that PDF/is would go in that
series?

Should IPPFAX go in its own series, or should it be in the IPP 5100.n
series?

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
series.


ISSUE:  Separate isssue is what happens when the Proposed/Candidate
Standard
reaches 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.

Tom







More information about the Pwg mailing list