PWG> Process [file name convention clarifications]

PWG> Process [file name convention clarifications]

PWG> Process [file name convention clarifications]

Hastings, Tom N hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Fri May 30 15:15:05 EDT 2003


Elliott,

I agree with Ira's comments.  File names should be of the form:

	wd-[wg][spec][version]-yyyymmdd.pdf

where wg is "cr" in your case for the Character Repertoire WG.  This
refinement of the file name syntax needs to be added to the process
document.

You could name your Standard Character Repertoires with an acronym or some
somewhat pronouncable abbrievation:

	wd-crscr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
or
	wd-crrep10-yyyymmdd.pdf

or whatever you want after the "cr".

I wasn't at the meeting, but my understanding was that the file name was to
have just three fields each separated by "-".  So I think that Dennis's
alternative of introducing a fourth field for "sub-projects" is counter to
that.

IPP has 20 or more documents. We don't consider them "sub-projects".

Our new file names so far are:

wd-ippdoc10-20030519.doc       - Document object
wd-ippOverride10-20030527.doc  - Overrides
wd-ippfutures10-20030528.doc   - Futures (a bad name because it isn't
specific)
wd-ippjobx10-20030528.doc      - Job Extensions 
wd-ippsave10-20030303.doc      - Job Save and other extensions


As a related comment that might possibly want to be included in the process
document (or at least in the PWG standard template document):

I've been trying to use the second field (minus the numeric part) in the
file name as the cross reference inside [] inside the documents.  So I've
been using:
[ippdoc], [ippOverride], [ippfuture], [ippjobx], and [ippsave] as cross
references to the other IPP documents.

Tom 


-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 09:06
To: 'ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com'; pwg at pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> Process


Hi Elliot,

Inline replies below.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
  High North Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com [mailto:ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:49 AM
To: pwg at pwg.org
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:
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wg/wd/wd-wg10-yyyymmdd.pdf

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:
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-cr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-rs10-yyyymmdd.pdf
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-crrs10-yyyymmdd.pdf


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

	wd-[wg][spec][version]-yyyymmdd.pdf

Which yields names like:

	wd-ippdoc10-yyyymmdd.pdf

	wd-crscr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
      - 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'.
</ira>


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


<ira>
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).
</ira>



-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 09:53
To: pwg at pwg.org
Cc: ElliottBradshaw at oaktech.com
Subject: Re: PWG> Process

Elliott,

My comments below, marked with <dmc></dmc>.

Dennis

 

                      ElliottBradshaw at o

                      aktech.com               To:       pwg at pwg.org

                      Sent by:                 cc:

                      owner-pwg at pwg.org        Subject:  Re: PWG> Process

 

 

                      05/29/03 06:48 AM

 

 







Since I'm about to post documents for CR, I went through the file naming
7section in detail.

1.  For a Working Draft (e.g.), the name is of the form:
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wg/wd/wd-wg10-yyyymmdd.pdf

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:
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-cr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-rs10-yyyymmdd.pdf
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-crrs10-yyyymmdd.pdf
<dmc>
You're right that we haven't dealt with "subprojects".
I'd vote for the third option just above, or a slightly-different fourth
option:
     ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-cr-rs10-yyyymmdd.pdf
</dmc>

2.  Can we use the http: URL rather than ftp: in references to these
documents?  Seems friendlier.
<dmc>
I'm not sure what you mean.
</dmc>



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



More information about the Pwg mailing list