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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:35:25 -0400

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 objection.
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 voting
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 discussed
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