<html>
David et al,<br>
<br>
I learned at the Charleston meeting, that PDES developped a ballot
submission tool which works with the HTML version of modules and allows
for gathering issues, preparing national votes, etc. <br>
The guidelines for reviewers to qualify their comments should be the same
whether they are using the tool or doing it by hand.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Max<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:07 18.12.2000 +0000, Julian Fowler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>David et al<br>
<br>
For the purposes established by the SC4 resolution, the sample file
<br>
attached to your message looks fine to me. Noting the lack of page <br>
numbers, and given that the HTML is regarded as the master document,
<br>
I think that it would be useful to ask reviewers to qualify their <br>
comments by clause, paragraph, and sentence (rather than, for <br>
example, "third line on page 7") when submitting issues.<br>
<br>
A note in the "comments to reader" stating that the document
has been <br>
prepared using HTML and that there are some minor deviations from the
<br>
final presentation/layout requirements would also be useful to avoid
<br>
non-value-added comments during ballot.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
Julian<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2000-12-13 at 11:36, you wrote:<br>
<br>
> WG10 and QC,<br>
> <br>
> As you hopefully are aware, an SC4 resolution was passed that
allows<br>
> the suite of STEP application modules currently being developed
in<br>
> HTML to go out for ballot as a web site rather than as paper.
That<br>
> resolution said that the documents going out for ballot in HTML
must<br>
> also be accompanied by a printable version (i.e. a PDF) so that
people<br>
> can review the documents on airplanes, etc. As you might
surmise,<br>
> generating PDF from a linked set of web pages is not simple and
so<br>
> concerns have arisen as to how to do this and what the requirements
on<br>
> the PDF might be. The modules developers are working on this
and need<br>
> our help.<br>
> <br>
> Attached is a PDF generated from one module that will go out
for<br>
> ballot in a few weeks. The modules developers are asking what
changes<br>
> are required by SC4 in order for this to meet the requirements for
"a<br>
> printable version" of the module. I'll warn you that it is
ugly<br>
> compared to a traditional ISO ballot document but please remember
that<br>
> the only purpose is to allow offline technical review of portions of
a<br>
> web site of modules. Also, there are some format issues (e.g.
the<br>
> bulleted list of normative references and introductory text needed
for<br>
> some subclauses) that have already been raised.<br>
> <br>
> Comment please!<br>
> Thanks,<br>
> David<br>
> <br>
> (See attached file: identifcation_assignment.PDF)<br>
> <br>
> IBM Corporation<br>
> 5300 International Blvd.<br>
> N. Charleston, SC 29418, USA<br>
> dmprice@us.ibm.com<br>
> Phone : +1 (843) 760-4341 Fax : +1 (843) 760-3349<br>
> Oooo.<br>
> (UNC)<br>
> ) /<br>
> (*/<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Julian Fowler, PDT Solutions<br>
Telephone: +44 15242 63389 Mobile: +44 7939 276005<br>
Fax: +44 870 052 3414 Email: jfowler@pdtsolutions.co.uk<br>
<a href="http://www.pdtsolutions.co.uk/" eudora="autourl">http://www.pdtsolutions.co.uk</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
ProSTEP
GmbH
Phone: +49-6151-9287-361<br>
Dr.-Ing. Max
Ungerer<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>Fax:
+49-6151-9287-356<br>
Dolivostraße
11
<x-tab> </x-tab>Email: ungerer@prostep.de<br>
D-64293
Darmstadt
<a href="http://www.prostep.de/" eudora="autourl"><u>http://www.prostep.de</a></u>
<br>
Germany<br>
____________________________________________________________</html>