So are you suggesting we can solve the two usages of the word "draft" in our
PWG process:
"Working Draft"
versus
"Draft Standard"
by changing "Draft Standard" to "Final Beta Standard" or "Public Beta
Standard"?
Thanks,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Wu, Michael HDi [mailto:Michael.Wu@heidelberg.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:10
To: Hastings, Tom N; pwg@pwg.org
Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
"Draft Standard" look like a "Final Beta" or "Public Beta". I don't see why
we cannot use it.
Michael Wu
Software Engineering Expertise Center
Heidelberg Digital L.L.C.
2600 Manitou Road
Rochester, NY. 14624
Office: 585.512.8715
Fax: 585.512.8076
< mailto:Michael.Wu@Heidelberg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:25 PM
To: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Here is why I think that "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron. Draft is too
fleeting. Standard is meant to be more stable.
So I looked up the word "Draft" in the dictionary. Webster's Seventh
Collegiate Dictionary says:
"a preliminary sketch, outline, or version".
We all use the word "draft" (or "working draft") to mean the document that
we update rapidly to get to a version that we all consider stable enough to
have a Last Call.
So one of the appealing suggestions made at today's call was to just remove
section 3.4 Draft Standard and have only 3.4 Proposed Standard and 3.6
Standard. Both have to have a series of drafts to be reviewed to lead up to
being an approved Proposed Standard or an approved Standard. And both need
to have a draft that is considered good enough to both trying a Last Call
and then the Last Call has to actually pass.
I think much of our trouble is terminology, so fixing the terminology, and
deleting a step seems to be a good thing to do and is NOT abandoning the
process or overturning turnips.
Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 14:38:50 EST