For the Semantic Model Team meeting on Thursday.
Do you have a document the covers "ISTO requirements"?
Harry had said a while ago that the ISTO was working on a revised template
and/or requirements. Has any progress been made on that?
Ira, Dennis, and I thought that it would be better to have the Abstract and
names of the authors on the first page, in case the ISTO is accepting
suggestions on their format.
From: Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us [mailto:Ron.Bergman at hitachi-ps.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 15:37
To: pwg-ipp at pwg.org
Subject: PWG-IPP> Last Call Comments on IPP "-actual" Attributes
Technically the document looks very sound. The following comments
are primarily editorial.
1. RFC 2565 and 2566 are obsolete. It is not appropriate to reference
obsolete documents, especially as a normative reference. See
Line 146 (in section 1 Introduction)
Line 228 (in section 3 -actual attributes)
Line 331 - 336 (in section 7.1 Normative References
2. In lines 151 & 152 recommend changing "(or are going to print)" to
"(or are expected to be printed)" to be more consistent with the
example in section 3.3.
3. In line 239 remove "that has the" and all of the text in the
following line. This additional text adds nothing and results in
a sentence that is very difficult to read.
4. In lines 279 and 280 there is a strange split (by WORD) of the
5. The formatting of the document is not per ISTO requirements.
Specifically page numbering and headers. Is there a procedure
for format review prior to final publication? I propose that
this needs to be established.
Hitachi Printing Solutions