PWG> Process

PWG> Process

PWG> Process

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at
Thu May 29 12:06:14 EDT 2003

Hi Elliot,

Inline replies below.

- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: ElliottBradshaw at [mailto:ElliottBradshaw at]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:49 AM
To: pwg at
Subject: Re: PWG> Process

Since I'm about to post documents for CR, I went through the file naming
section in detail.

1.  For a Working Draft (e.g.), the name is of the form:

But if a Working Group publishes multiple projects, shouldn't "wg10" be
replaced by something project specific?  And does the local file name have
to include the group name somewhere (for global uniqueness) or will that be
handled by the PWG standard number assigned later?

So, if the CR group publishes a working draft called "The
RepertoireSupported Element" what should I call it:

<ira> Process draft may not capture this yet, but the simple filename is
supposed to be formed as:


Which yields names like:


      - the first 'cr' is the working group
      - the 'scr' is (an acronym for) Standard Character Repertoires
It doesn't matter (much) what the short acronym for each spec is in
the filename - just that it's unique within the working group and is
never reused for a different meaning.

If the working group only produces one document (such as PSI at present),
then the middle string can just be [wg][version] like 'psi10'.

2.  Can we use the http: URL rather than ftp: in references to these
documents?  Seems friendlier.

No - you can publish 'http:' URLs _in_addition_to_ the authoritative 'ftp:'
URLs, but there must be a stable 'ftp:' URL for each document (Web URLs
are often fragile and are also synthetic - they don't have any general
relationship to the underlying filesystem on the server).

Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Oak Technology Imaging Group
781 638-7534


                    Harry Lewis

                    <harryl at       To:     pwg at

                    .com>                cc:

                    Sent by:             Subject:     PWG> Process

                    owner-pwg at pwg.





                    07:04 PM


There is really no last call process for the process document ;-). Please
review and prepare to try and close this formally at the Portland plenary.
If you can't make Portland please share you comments ahead of time so they
may be incorporated.
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems

More information about the Pwg mailing list