Subject: JMP> Editorial Comments for version 0.83

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:07:03 -0700 (PDT)

Tom,

Here are some editorial comments on the latest draft:

1. In paragraph 1.2 - 1. - "finishing" is a bad term to use in this
   paragraph.  It could possibility be confused with "finisher".
   A better term would be "ending" or "completing" (or anything
   but "finishing".)

2. This is really a minor nit, the sub-paragraphs in 1.2 (and also
   many other places in the document) do not have a space between
   the period and the first word of the text.  This is minor, but
   also very easy to fix.

3. Section 2. Terminology and Job Model - contains the following:

   "For example, PostScript systems use the term
    session for what we call a job in this specification and the term job
    to mean what we call a document in this specification."

   Reword to: "For example, PostScript systems use the term session
   in place of job as defined in this specification and the term job
   as document is defined in this specification."  (Maybe someone can
   develop a better wording.  The goal is to eliminate the "we".))

   It then goes on to say...  "PJL systems
   use the term job to mean what we call a job in this specification.
   PJL also supports multiple documents per job, but does not support
   specifying per-document attributes independently for each document."

   This second part, while useful information, does not belong here.
   One example to explain why the definitions are important is
   sufficient.  The information on PJL belongs in the RFC that
   provides the mapping of the job MIB to job submission protocols.

4. The definitions in section 2 should begin with a capital letter.
   For example:

      "Job set: a group of jobs..."

   should be:

      "Job Set: A group of jobs..."

5. The definitions from "User" to "Job Accounting" begin with "is".
   The "is" should be removed.

6. In the definition for "Device", contains the text "...interfaces to
   humans in human perceptible means, such as produces marks on paper,..."

   and the follows with:  "scans marks on paper to produce an electronic
   representations, or writes CD-ROMS..."

   The first example is sufficient and I don't believe that the other
   examples are applicable.  Is either "human perceptible"?

7. The second part of the definition of "Device" states: "...interfaces
   to a network..."

   A better definition would be "...interfaces electronically to
   another device..."

...More to come.

	Ron Bergman