PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

Wagner,William WWagner at NetSilicon.com
Wed Apr 14 18:12:24 EDT 2004


me too
 
Bill Wagner

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell at cda.canon.com] 
	Sent: Wed 4/14/2004 2:06 PM 
	To: thrasher at lexmark.com; pwg at pwg.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment
	
	

	Good idea -- it works for me.  
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: owner-pwg at pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
	thrasher at lexmark.com
	Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:11 AM
	To: pwg at pwg.org
	Subject: Re: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment
	
	
	I have a suggestion for modifying the "Maturity Level" (section 4.5.1)
	of the current process document.
	
	As I have been starting to update the older approved PWG documents I
	noticed that the Maturity Level is currently not supposed to be included
	on a Candidate Standard or Standard.....although on some of the recently
	approved documents it is.....
	
	I'm looking for a way to indicate that PWG 5100.4-2001 is obsolete
	(other than a background watermark...).
	when I update the links and front matter.
	
	Suggestion:
	
	Change the "Maturity Level" to "Status"...and add "Approved" and
	"Obsolete"
	or "Obsoleted by...." as kewords to be used on Candidate Standards and
	Standards.
	
	So the "Status" of a Working Draft or other PWG documents  would be
	Initial, Interim, Prototype, and Stable.
	The "Status" of a Candidate Standard/Standard/other approvable documents
	would be Approved, or Obsolete....
	
	Here's a copy of this applied to the update of PWG5100.1........as well
	as the updated cover matter."
	
	ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/example_pwg5100.1.pdf
	
	Comments??
	JT
	
	
	
	
	





More information about the Pwg mailing list