PWG Mail Archive: RE: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

RE: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

From: Farrell, Lee (Lee.Farrell@cda.canon.com)
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:06:08 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "RE: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment"

    Good idea -- it works for me.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-pwg@pwg.org [mailto:owner-pwg@pwg.org] On Behalf Of
    thrasher@lexmark.com
    Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:11 AM
    To: pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: PWG> Updated PWG Process comment

    I have a suggestion for modifying the "Maturity Level" (section 4.5.1)
    of the current process document.

    As I have been starting to update the older approved PWG documents I
    noticed that the Maturity Level is currently not supposed to be included
    on a Candidate Standard or Standard.....although on some of the recently
    approved documents it is.....

    I'm looking for a way to indicate that PWG 5100.4-2001 is obsolete
    (other than a background watermark...).
    when I update the links and front matter.

    Suggestion:

    Change the "Maturity Level" to "Status"...and add "Approved" and
    "Obsolete"
    or "Obsoleted by...." as kewords to be used on Candidate Standards and
    Standards.

    So the "Status" of a Working Draft or other PWG documents would be
    Initial, Interim, Prototype, and Stable.
    The "Status" of a Candidate Standard/Standard/other approvable documents
    would be Approved, or Obsolete....

    Here's a copy of this applied to the update of PWG5100.1........as well
    as the updated cover matter."

    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/misc/example_pwg5100.1.pdf

    Comments??
    JT



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 14 2004 - 14:06:22 EDT