PWG Mail Archive: RE: PWG> Process

RE: PWG> Process

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 12:06:14 EDT

  • Next message: Dennis Carney: "Re: PWG> Process"

    Hi Elliot,

    Inline replies below.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald
      High North Inc

    -----Original Message-----
    From: ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com [mailto:ElliottBradshaw@oaktech.com]
    Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:49 AM
    To: pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: PWG> Process

    Since I'm about to post documents for CR, I went through the file naming
    section in detail.

    1. For a Working Draft (e.g.), the name is of the form:
         ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wg/wd/wd-wg10-yyyymmdd.pdf

    But if a Working Group publishes multiple projects, shouldn't "wg10" be
    replaced by something project specific? And does the local file name have
    to include the group name somewhere (for global uniqueness) or will that be
    handled by the PWG standard number assigned later?

    So, if the CR group publishes a working draft called "The
    RepertoireSupported Element" what should I call it:
         ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-cr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
         ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-rs10-yyyymmdd.pdf
         ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cr/wd/wd-crrs10-yyyymmdd.pdf

    <ira> Process draft may not capture this yet, but the simple filename is
    supposed to be formed as:

            wd-[wg][spec][version]-yyyymmdd.pdf

    Which yields names like:

            wd-ippdoc10-yyyymmdd.pdf

            wd-crscr10-yyyymmdd.pdf
          - the first 'cr' is the working group
          - the 'scr' is (an acronym for) Standard Character Repertoires
        
    It doesn't matter (much) what the short acronym for each spec is in
    the filename - just that it's unique within the working group and is
    never reused for a different meaning.

    If the working group only produces one document (such as PSI at present),
    then the middle string can just be [wg][version] like 'psi10'.
    </ira>

    2. Can we use the http: URL rather than ftp: in references to these
    documents? Seems friendlier.

    <ira>
    No - you can publish 'http:' URLs _in_addition_to_ the authoritative 'ftp:'
    URLs, but there must be a stable 'ftp:' URL for each document (Web URLs
    are often fragile and are also synthetic - they don't have any general
    relationship to the underlying filesystem on the server).
    </ira>

    ------------------------------------------
    Elliott Bradshaw
    Director, Software Engineering
    Oak Technology Imaging Group
    781 638-7534

     

                        Harry Lewis

                        <harryl@us.ibm To: pwg@pwg.org

                        .com> cc:

                        Sent by: Subject: PWG> Process

                        owner-pwg@pwg.

                        org

     

     

                        05/21/2003

                        07:04 PM

     

    There is really no last call process for the process document ;-). Please
    review and prepare to try and close this formally at the Portland plenary.
    If you can't make Portland please share you comments ahead of time so they
    may be incorporated.
    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/process/pwg-process20-20030414.pdf
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    http://www.pwg.org
    IBM Printing Systems
    http://www.ibm.com/printers
    303-924-5337
    ----------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 29 2003 - 12:25:14 EDT