The Rationale and Requirements that you find unacceptable in the
WIMS spec were directly taken (with extensions where needed) from
the same section of the PWG Imaging System Counters spec which is
in Formal Vote (i.e., has completed Last Call and updates).
Presumably your objections apply equally to the Counter spec?
An informal Scenarios document could certainly be written. But
the PWG Process would NOT permit it to be adopted via Formal Vote,
because it would not meet the PWG Process requirements for the
content of an approved Protocol Requirements spec.
I have little faith in the value of 'informal documents'. There
is no evidence that anyone ever read the two versions of the IPP
Implementors Guide except the editors of same.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
wamwagner at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:56 PM
To: 'wims at pwg.org'
Subject: WIMS> No WIMS Teleconference Wednesday 31 August
Sorry I did not get out the minutes from last week's WIMS Protocol
Teleconference. (I left my notes in Massachusetts) Main points were:
1. There were no objections to Ira's Requirements section
2. There were objections to the way the figures translate to PDF. Jerry
offered to reformat them.
3. In transforming Ira's requirements section to MS Word, I had made some
global changes that inadventently when into the draft as a whole.These made
reading a bit difficult. Since no one else commented on these rather gross
anomalies, it is safe to assume no one read the draft.
4. Ira had a set of additional changes he felt were necessary, including a
new chapter 5.
5. The potential changes to the document made review prior to the changes of
6. With Rick not in attendance, discussion of extensions to support
manager-initiated management did not seem appropriate.
With these considerations, we decided to skip the Wednesday 31 August
I have posted the updated spec with the global error corrected, Jerry's
revised pictures, and Ira's "to do list" at
Although Ira's requirements section and proposed changes make the spec a
more rigorously valid document, they also abstract the protocol, it's
purposes and the way it is intended to work to such an extent that I wonder
whether anyone will invest the energy needed to understand it. I would
propose that, if indeed there is any interest in the idea, a non rigorous,
semi-technical, document on the order of the Scenarios be considered.