UPD> Fw: PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG ANNOUNCE> PWG Formal Vote Results for UPDF 1.0

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 12:59:23 EDT

  • Next message: Norbert Schade: "UPD> Fw: different ways to use the UPDF instances, Q&A attached"

    UPDF team... first, congratulations on UPDF passing.
    I believe it is your team's responsibility, now, to address the comments
    received. As there was STRONG OBJECTION, which, upon review, is
    substantive in terms of effecting actual adoption, I urge the UPDF team to
    make a concerted effort to produce the requested improvements.
    I know you worked long and hard to get UPDF across the goal line. The
    objection received does not appear to be from someone who disagrees with
    the specification, rather someone who is looking for guidance that will
    encourage adoption. It does not good for the PWG to pass standards that
    will not (or cannot readily) be adopted.
    Hope your team will meet this challenge!
    Harry Lewis
    Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 06/02/2004 10:52 AM -----

    Sent by: owner-pwg-announce@pwg.org
    06/02/2004 07:35 AM


    PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG ANNOUNCE> PWG Formal Vote Results for UPDF 1.0

    The results of the recently completed PWG Formal Vote for the UPDF 1.0
    Specification are as follows:

    Vote Count:

    Yes: 8
    No: 1 (with strong objection)
    Abstain: 2

    PWG Process Document Criteria:

    1. Met the 25 percent participation (needed at least 9 votes).
    2. Met the 80 percent approval requirement from the No w/ strong
    3. Met the 50 percent of votes either yes or no....(needed at least 5)

    UPDF Formal Vote passes.

    Note: There was one additioinal Yes vote that was received after the
    period closed.

    By the guidelines in the PWG Process Document (both old and new draft),
    comments submitted
    with a No vote (or No with strong objection) are to be posted and
    on the PWG Announce
    email list......

    Here are the comments:

    1. The specification does not include examples for each element,
        nor does it tie each schema together to show a complete
        implementation. See the (many) W3C specifications for XML and/or
        SGML-based formats which *do* include examples.

    2. I do not see a single complete sample file for any printer
        device. I see a lot of fragments made by Norbert, but I don't
        see a complete file that could be used as reference against
        the spec or schema files that shows the current specification
        is useful or feasible for a driver, application, or UI component
        to use.

    3. The separation of schemas is confusing and leads me to believe
        that a single device description is composed of multiple XML
        files. Given the limited sample fragments on the PWG FTP
        server, it is not clear what the actual organization is supposed
        to be. THIS NEEDS TO BE DEFINED in order to allow for actual
        interoperability and network transparency.

    4. My general impression is that the current specification is
        not complete enough to be used in an actual printing
        environment nor does it provide any advantages over existing
        interfaces and formats. Of what use is a new format if it only
        does what every other format does?

    I will send a separate not when the 51xx.n number is assigned and is
        published as a candidate standard.

    Jerry Thrasher
    PWG Secretary

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 12:59:50 EDT