attachment-0001

UPDF team... first, congratulations on UPDF passing. I believe it is your team's responsibility, now, to address the comments received. As there was STRONG OBJECTION, which, upon review, is substantive in terms of effecting actual adoption, I urge the UPDF team to make a concerted effort to produce the requested improvements. I know you worked long and hard to get UPDF across the goal line. The objection received does not appear to be from someone who disagrees with the specification, rather someone who is looking for guidance that will encourage adoption. It does not good for the PWG to pass standards that will not (or cannot readily) be adopted. Hope your team will meet this challenge! ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- ----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 06/02/2004 10:52 AM ----- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>thrasher@lexmark.com Sent by: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org 06/02/2004 07:35 AM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td valign=top>pwg-announce@pwg.org <tr> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td valign=top> <tr> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td valign=top>PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG ANNOUNCE> PWG Formal Vote Results for UPDF 1.0</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> <tt>The results of the recently completed PWG Formal Vote for the UPDF 1.0 Specification are as follows: Vote Count: Yes:          8 No:            1 (with strong objection) Abstain:   2 PWG Process Document Criteria: 1. Met the 25 percent participation (needed at least 9 votes). 2. Met the 80 percent approval requirement from the No w/ strong objection. 3. Met the 50 percent of votes either yes or no....(needed at least 5) UPDF Formal Vote passes. Note: There was one additioinal Yes vote that was received after the voting period closed. By the guidelines in the PWG Process Document (both old and new draft), comments submitted with a No vote (or No with strong objection) are to be posted and discussed on the PWG Announce email list...... Here are the comments: 1. The specification does not include examples for each element,    nor does it tie each schema together to show a complete    implementation.  See the (many) W3C specifications for XML and/or    SGML-based formats which *do* include examples. 2. I do not see a single complete sample file for any printer    device.  I see a lot of fragments made by Norbert, but I don't    see a complete file that could be used as reference against    the spec or schema files that shows the current specification    is useful or feasible for a driver, application, or UI component    to use. 3. The separation of schemas is confusing and leads me to believe    that a single device description is composed of multiple XML    files.  Given the limited sample fragments on the PWG FTP    server, it is not clear what the actual organization is supposed    to be.  THIS NEEDS TO BE DEFINED in order to allow for actual    interoperability and network transparency. 4. My general impression is that the current specification is    not complete enough to be used in an actual printing    environment nor does it provide any advantages over existing    interfaces and formats.  Of what use is a new format if it only    does what every other format does? I will send a separate not when the 51xx.n number is assigned and is    published as a candidate standard. Jerry Thrasher PWG Secretary </tt>