I prefer identifying documents by date rather than by version number.
For IPPFax, it was sometime into the process when we decided what
"version" to use. (Should we make this the first version 1.0 or align
our version with the version of IPP we were going to require V1.0)
There also seems to be some discussion on the version of IPP for the
Document object....
Gail
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:03 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: Farrell, Lee; PWG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
I propose we draft a working draft of a proposal for drafting draft
standards proposals. Oh.. that's right.. we did that once...
Seriously... can we move off the topic of how the brain and tongue work
together and focus on what appeared to be the issues with substance from
yesterday's call?
1. 3 tier or 2 tier. We had a 3 step process but I'm willing to reduce
this to 2 steps based on our experience
- We used to call our 3 step process Proposed, Draft and Standard
- We can call our 2 step process anything but I think Proposed and
Standard were the most vocal (Draft and Standard does fit better in my
brain... but then there is this endless debate.. anyone got a coin)?
2. Versioning
- <major>.<minor>.<revision>
- date coded
We have documents in or nearing last call which really depend on
closure.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
01/31/2003 12:35 PM
To: "Farrell, Lee" <Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com>
cc: "PWG (E-mail)" <pwg@pwg.org>
Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Lee and Bill,
The problem is what do you call successive versions of the Draft
Standard, before you are ready to send it out for Last Call?
Working Drafts of the Draft Standard?
Using "Draft" in two different senses in the same sentence to identify a
document is pretty confusing. And we know that people in normal
conversion like to drop the adjectives and just talk about the "Draft".
So which do they mean when they say the "Draft is ...".
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Farrell, Lee [mailto:Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 18:33
To: PWG (E-mail)
Subject: RE: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Duh.
[If people can understand "jumbo shrimp" without losing sleep, I don't
see why "draft standard" would cause a problem.]
lee
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N
Cc: pwg@pwg.org
Subject: Re: PWG> "Draft Standard" is an oxymoron
Er... Um... so why is it so hard to put the definition to use and
realize that a "Draft Standard" is a preliminary version of a
"Standard"?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-pwg@pwg.org
01/30/2003 04:24 PM
To: pwg@pwg.org
cc:
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 - 15:24:52 EST