Tom,
In your template, you mention that you should publish a "xxx-rev.doc" file in
addition to a "xxx.doc" and other versions of a specification. Why do we need
to publish both a "xxx.doc" and an "xxx-rev.doc" when you can view the changes
in the Word document by just changing a Word setting ("Final Showing Markup" as
opposed to "Final")? This seems to be overkill. Obviously my question does not
apply to the "xxx.pdf" versions; the "xxx-rev.pdf" version is still needed.
-Rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pwg@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg@pwg.org] On Behalf
> Of Hastings, Tom N
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:19 PM
> To: pwg@pwg.org
> Cc: sm@pwg.org
> Subject: PWG> Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template for PWG
> Proposed Standards
>
>
> In case there is time at the end of the SM telecon tomorrow,
> Thursday, Jan 30, 1-2 PM EST (10-11 PST) after we discuss the
> PWG Process, here is a Strawman for a PWG IEEE-ISTO Template
> for PWG Proposed Standards.
>
> This is a one-time notification to both reflectors. Further
> on-line discussion of the PWG Template with occur ONLY on
> pwg@pwg.org, NOT on the sm@pwg.org (same as for any other PWG
> process discussion).
>
> Dennis Carney, Ira McDonald, Ron Bergman, and I have been
> working on an MS-WORD template for PWG IEEE-ISTO standards
> for use by all the PWG WGs doing IEEE-ISTO standards. Here
> is version 0.2 as a strawman.
>
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-latest.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-latest.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>
> Ira and I made some simplifications in it as part of making
> version 0.2 over the IEEE-ISTO style as documents below in
> Appendix C which also described why we made each change. Ira
> and I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone else about many
> of these simplifications.
>
> ISSUE: So an imporant issue is whether these simplifications
> are OK or do we need to rigorously follow the IEEE-ISTO
> standard style?
>
> The rest of version 0.2 is incorporating the detailed commens
> that Dennis Carney had made as a result of trying to use a
> template while he wrote up his "-actuals" IPP specification.
>
> There is a companion document: "Tips for Good Technical
> Writing" which I moved from the Appendix to a separate
> document available at:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-
> latest.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-
> latest.doc
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/pwg-template-for-s
> tandards-v02-030127.pdf
>
> Please send comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
> Appendix C Differences between this Template and the
> IEEE-ISTO standard
> style
> This Appendix lists the differences between this Template and
> the IEEE/ISTO standard style and explains why. The IEEE-ISTO
> standard style is represented in the IEEE/ISTO 5101.1 Media
> Name Standard. These differences have evolved after
> experience using the IEEE/ISTO standard style for online
> viewing and printing with Adobe Acrobat. The differences are
> (working top to bottom):
> 1. Merged the redundant second page (which had the
> Abstract)
> onto the first page and got rid of the second page. Our
> understanding is that having two title pages comes from
> publishing the document in printed form, where the first page
> is like a cover. Most standards bodies have eliminated the
> cover so that the Abstract appears on the first page.
> 2. Added "(PWG)" after "The Printer Working Group" in the
> title.
> 3. Removed the redundant indications of whether
> this version is
> a Working Draft, a Proposed Standard, a Draft Standard, or a
> Standard from the Header. Only the title indicates the
> status. A Working Draft has: "Working Draft for a PWG
> Proposed Standard". A Proposed Standard after passing WG
> Last Call will have: "PWG Proposed Standard". A Draft
> Standard after passing WG Last Call will have: "PWG Draft
> Standard". A Standard after passing PWG Last Call will have:
> "PWG Standard"
> 4. Added the URL for the document on the first
> page, so that it
> is easy to find.
> 5. Added Editor's name(s) to the first page, so that proper
> credit is given as is common in some standards bodies.
> 6. Simplified the headers and footers, so that the
> headers are
> all the same except for the first page. Keeping the headers
> and footers simple will reduce errors in producing drafts and
> allow editor's to focus on content more and format less.
> 7. The Left side of the Header is blank for Working Drafts,
> then gets IEEE-ISTO 51nn.n after the Working Draft passes WG
> Last Call. Thus the editor only changes the Header once, when
> the specification passes Last Call.
> 8. In the Header, the Title is centered with most
> of the fixed
> parts removed.
> 9. In the Header, the page number is always on the
> right. The
> IEEE-ISTO format did not have the page number on the top at
> all, which has proved a problem when viewing the
> specification with Adobe Acrobat, when the user can only see
> part of the page at one time. Also scrolling upwards and
> downwards needs the page numbers to be at the top and bottom.
> 10. The Footer follows the IEEE-ISTO style, except the page
> number is always centered, instead of alternating left and
> right. This makes it easier to spot the page number when
> viewing it on the screen.
> 11. Page numbers in the Header and Footer, start at
> 1 with the
> first page. No Roman numerals are used. This makes it
> easier to relate pages as numbered by Adobe Acrobat and those
> printing on each page and in the Table of Contents. Also
> when printing out selected pages, the page number used by the
> Printer driver agree with the printed page numbers.
> 12. Defined the Body Text style to use ragged
> right, rather than
> justified, in order to make the document more readable by
> people when printed or displayed though it may not look as pretty.
> 13. Added editor names for PWG standards in the References
> section, as is practice in some standards bodies and most
> technical publications.
> 14. Removed the first initials from references and used only
> family names as is becoming practice to avoid the cultural
> confusion about whether family names come first or last.
>
> Here is the change log:
> Changes to make version 0.2, January 27, 2003
> The following changes were made to create version 0.2,
> January 27, 2003 after careful review by Dennis Carney and
> Ira McDonald:
> 1. Generalized the template so that it can be for any PWG
> standard, not just IPP.
> 2. Simplified the template so that as few fields
> as possible
> have to be updated as the specification progresses through
> the process - otherwise everyone does it differently.
> 3. Follow the IEEE-ISTO style with the exceptions listed in
> Appendix C derived from experience viewing and printing
> on-line versions using Adobe Acrobat.
> 4. Explained the file naming scheme for PWG WGs.
> 5. Added the requirements for a Logical Diagram and a
> Configuration Diagrams and showed some IPP examples.
> 6. Highlighted IPP specific instructions and
> examples in green,
> like this, in order to give real examples, but make the
> Template work for all PWG Working Groups
> 7. Added RFC 3380, 3381, 3382.
> 8. Added a number of terms that may be useful to
> PWG projects
> other than IPP.
> 9. Moved the Appendix "Tips for Good Technical
> Writing" to a
> separate document available at:
> ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/templates/good-writing-tips-
latest.pdf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 18:47:10 EST