Subject: Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:08:32 -0500

Don,

We won't be at the plenary (although Norbert will be in Tampa for the UPDF
meeting) so here is our two cents.

PWG seems like the right home for XHTML-Print.  We like the work you've
done and hope it becomes final soon.   I wonder what impact this will have
on the timing within the UPnP group.  Since the plan there has been to
finalize this soon, would that vote go ahead?  What happens if the PWG
process makes changes afterwards?  Perhaps PWG should vote on adopting the
UPnP result lock stock and barrel, or else UPnP should just turn it over
right away.

Also, I assume a goal is to do this in a way that the Bluetooth folks can
adopt it as well...true?

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

                    [email-masked]                                                       
                    Sent by:                To:     [email-masked]                  
                    owner-pwg-announ        cc:     [email-masked],                 
                    [email-masked]              [email-masked],                     
                                            [email-masked]                    
                                            Subject:     PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for        
                    02/27/01 04:23          XHTML-Print Working Group                     
                    PM                                                                    

A working group to develop the XHTML-Print "datastream" is being proposed
for
the PWG.  I have included a pointer to a proposed charter which will be
discussed at the PWG Plenary in Tampa.

ftp://ftp.pwg.org.pub/pwg/xhtml-print/charter/XHTML-Print-Charter-01.doc

Comments should be sent to me or brought up at the Plenary in Tampa.  A
mailing
list for this project has not yet been set up yet.

**********************************************
* Don Wright                 [email-masked] *
* Chair, Printer Working Group               *
* Chair, IEEE MSC                            *
*                                            *
* Director, Strategic & Technical Alliances  *
* Lexmark International                      *
* 740 New Circle Rd                          *
* Lexington, Ky 40550                        *
* 859-232-4808 (phone) 859-232-6740 (fax)    *
**********************************************

---

From: "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 17:10:48 -0800

As the Chairperson of the UPNP Imaging committee I am against starting a
separate working group to develop X-HTML Print.  We are very close to
locking down the BasicPrint Service which requires X-HTML Print and I had
envisioned locking down the X-HTML Print document in parallel.   It seems
that we are winding down the X-HTML Print discussions and are close to
agreement on a version of X-HTML Print that vendors could implement.  In
fact, the current UPNP Print Committee schedule has the X-HTML Print
document listed as "done" by 3/31/01 with a subsequent vote to agree on the
"final" version.   I have concerns that a separate working committee to
develop X-HTML Print could prolong the entire process for a UPNP Print
standard.       

Regards,

Shivaun Albright

_______________________________________________________________________
Shivaun Albright
Engineer Scientist 
Internet Imaging and Printing Systems (iIPS)
Hewlett Packard
Roseville, CA
(916) 785-7191
_______________________________________________________________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:09 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> Don,
>

---

From: "Harry Lewis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:13:32 -0700

I would resist any unnecessary prolonging of the X-HTML-Print process. I 
would view the PWG working group as short lived. I think X-HTML-Print is a 
good example of an industry wide standard, however, and feel the PWG is an 
appropriate "owner" and "keeper" of this standard. 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 

"ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
03/01/2001 06:10 PM

        To:     "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

document listed as "done" by 3/31/01 with a subsequent vote to agree on 
the

Regards,

Shivaun Albright

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:08:18 -0500

Elliott:

It is my goal to drive the XHTML-Print project to a very quick closure.  Since
the work has been going on for some time and has been actively reviewed by the
uPnP group and others, I see no reason to have this continue for very long.  For
example, I have no plans to ever have a face2face specifically for XHTML-Print.
Perhaps the problem some people are having are with the dates.  They were very
conservative and reflect the totality of a conservative PWG process that extends
beyond the "Draft Standard" stage which we would all implement (called out as 2Q
2001) to the "Standard" stage which comes after implementation experience and
perhaps a "PrintFest" (can't call it a Bake*ff after all!)

I truly expect this effort to conclude in the very near future whether it is
owned by the PWG or somewhere else.  The advantage of the PWG owning it long
term is that it provides a home for the documentation, the DTDs and for a long
term process allowing the standard to evolve as the industry gains experience
with it.

[email-masked] on 03/01/2001 05:08:32 PM

To:   "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc:   [email-masked] (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

Don,

                    [email-masked]
                                            Subject:     PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter

---

From: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 16:32:49 -0800

Shivaun,

I think we all want the spec to get out quickly.

What is still unclear to me is what alternative you prefer to have it
published by the PWG.

Is it to publish the XHTML spec as one of the UPnP documents?

If so, it not yet clear to me how open the UPnP specs are going to be once
they are published, e.g. can anybody get hold of them and can they be
referenced by other standards groups, and who will take on any maintenance
of the spec once it is finished?

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Manager, Print Services
Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:11 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

Regards,

Shivaun Albright

---

From: "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:35:18 -0700

I would like to propose that the owners of the document get together to
discuss this issue outlining the pros and cons of the different options and
return to their respective groups with a recommendation.

It's HP's current thinking that the W3C would be a better venue for this
document.  The W3C would seem the logical place since most, if not all, of
the technology in X-HTML Print has been developed in the W3C group (e.g.,
XHTML 1.0, XML, CSS).  A strong motive in choosing the W3C approach would be
to promote better integration of printing with web-based technologies.  One
suggested path might be to submit X-HTML Print version 1.0 as a "note" to
the W3C.  This provides a long-term, vendor-neutral web site for the
document.  Subsequent to this, we could start a print-focused working group
to address some of the issues we find with using XHTML for printing and
ensure this information is fed to the other W3C groups (e.g., CSS).

Regards,

Shivaun   

> From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:33 PM
> To: 'ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)';
> [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:54:12 -0800

Shivaun,

I still think it will be slow going to get it through the W3C.

How about first doing it as a PWG document and then offer it to the W3C.

Seems like a good compromise to me. That way we would have a published
document, while we are waiting for the W3C to get through their process.

Do others agree?

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Manager, Print Services

-----Original Message-----
From: ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:35 PM
To: 'Manros, Carl-Uno B'; ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1);
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

Regards,

Shivaun

---

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:41:17 -0800

Hi Carl-Uno,

A 'W3C Note' (as Shivaun proposed below) is the immediately
published equivalent of an 'IETF Internet-Draft'.  There would
be no W3C approval process at all, BUT the XHMTL-Print spec
would be highly visible to the Web development community
(not true when published via the PWG IEEE/ISTO process).

I like Shivaun's proposal.  Publish it via the W3C as an
'individual contribution' of the authors/editors.  Use it
in UPnP more or less immediately and in Bluetooth and elsewhere
in the near future.  Learn from the experience.  THEN work
to move XHTML-Print along on the W3C's standards track.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Manros, Carl-Uno B [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:54 PM
To: 'ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; Manros, Carl-Uno B;

Shivaun,

Do others agree?

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
Manager, Print Services

-----Original Message-----

Regards,

Shivaun

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 07:27:20 -0500

W3C????

So I guess any schedule issue is now of no concern to you?  The W3C process
would probably take 2 years.

"ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)"
<[email-masked]> on 03/06/2001 05:35:18 PM

To:   "'Manros, Carl-Uno B'" <[email-masked]>,
      "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)"
      <[email-masked]>,
      "[email-masked]'"
      <[email-masked]>,
      "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc:   [email-masked] (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

Regards,

Shivaun

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:54:20 -0500

All:

First of all, this thread needs to move to the [email-masked] mailing list.  Please
do not do a REPLY TO ALL without changing to the pwg list.

As I have stated often and in several meetings of groups interested in
XHTML-Print, I too would like to see XHTML-Print progress to the W3C at some
point.  However, it really can't go there first because of the schedule demands
being placed on XHTML-Print.  It is clear that few people on this list really
understand the W3C process.  As Lexmark's representative to the W3C Advisory
Council, I am very familar with that process so let me explain.

If the XHTML-Print document were to be a Submission to the W3C, it would have
roughly equal (but in reality less) standing than a personal ID to the IETF.
The problem is that the W3C is NOT required to do anything with it except
acknowledge the submission.  If we could "whip up" enough support within the W3C
to get some interest in it and if a majority of the 400 plus members of the W3C
(perhaps 10 of which have an interest in printing)concur we might get a project
started.  That process could then run for 1 or 2 years before a W3C
Recommendation would appear.  Until there is an approved project there would be
no home the documents, no home for the DTDs and no MIME type registered.  If we
do it first in the PWG and then work with the W3C on a submission and a future
project, all this would be taken care of until the W3C work is complete.  This
would be a "Draft Standard" under the PWG process followed by a "Recommendation"
under the W3C process.

The PWG has an excellent history of working with other standards bodies and I
expect it could do the same with the W3C.  We have worked with the IEEE SA to
create things like 1284-2000 and P1394.3.  We have worked with the IETF on IPP
and MIBs.  I fully expect that would could get the XHTML-Print standard stable
and with some implementation experience and then take it to the W3C and run it
through their process.  In the mean time, the printing community would have an
XTHML-Print standard to hand their hat.

Regards,

Shivaun

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:11:21 +0100

Too me it seems obviously to make this to a PWG standard - I don't
understand the concerns some people have.
We can always try to get it through the W3C process later.

So I fully agree with Don.

_____________________________________________________
Henrik Holst - Senior Software Design Engineer
i-data Printing Systems
Vadstrupvej 35-43, 2880 Bagsværd. Denmark
Web: http://www.i-data.com
Mail: [email-masked]

                    [email-masked]                                                                                    
                    Sent by:                To:     "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>    
                    owner-pwg-announ        cc:     "'Manros, Carl-Uno B'" <[email-masked]>,                
                    [email-masked]              "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <[email-masked]>,           
                                            "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
                                            Subject:     RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group       
                    07-03-01 16:54                                                                                     

All:

First of all, this thread needs to move to the [email-masked] mailing list.
Please
do not do a REPLY TO ALL without changing to the pwg list.

As I have stated often and in several meetings of groups interested in
XHTML-Print, I too would like to see XHTML-Print progress to the W3C at
some
point.  However, it really can't go there first because of the schedule
demands
being placed on XHTML-Print.  It is clear that few people on this list
really
understand the W3C process.  As Lexmark's representative to the W3C
Advisory
Council, I am very familar with that process so let me explain.

If the XHTML-Print document were to be a Submission to the W3C, it would
have
roughly equal (but in reality less) standing than a personal ID to the
IETF.
The problem is that the W3C is NOT required to do anything with it except
acknowledge the submission.  If we could "whip up" enough support within
the W3C
to get some interest in it and if a majority of the 400 plus members of the
W3C
(perhaps 10 of which have an interest in printing)concur we might get a
project
started.  That process could then run for 1 or 2 years before a W3C
Recommendation would appear.  Until there is an approved project there
would be
no home the documents, no home for the DTDs and no MIME type registered.
If we
do it first in the PWG and then work with the W3C on a submission and a
future
project, all this would be taken care of until the W3C work is complete.
This
would be a "Draft Standard" under the PWG process followed by a
"Recommendation"
under the W3C process.

The PWG has an excellent history of working with other standards bodies and
I
expect it could do the same with the W3C.  We have worked with the IEEE SA
to
create things like 1284-2000 and P1394.3.  We have worked with the IETF on
IPP
and MIBs.  I fully expect that would could get the XHTML-Print standard
stable
and with some implementation experience and then take it to the W3C and run
it
through their process.  In the mean time, the printing community would have
an
XTHML-Print standard to hand their hat.

To:   "'Manros, Carl-Uno B'"
<[email-masked]>,
      "ALBRIGHT,SHIVAUN (HP-Roseville,ex1)"
      <[email-masked]>,
      "[email-masked]'"
      <[email-masked]>,
      "Don_Wright/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc:   [email-masked] (bcc: Don
Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject:  RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> Charter for XHTML-Print Working Group

XHTML 1.0, XML, CSS).  A strong motive in choosing the W3C approach would
be

Regards,

Shivaun