Re: [dpub] short title for PWP-UCR

On 30 Aug 2016, at 22:50, Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com> wrote:
> 
> -1, unless we plan to replace the existing white paper  at /TR/pwp.

Likewise, -1 unless the above.

> And then we'd need a new short name for that, and changing short names leads to madness, as the CSSWG has (not) learned over and over. 
> 
> Can we continue to use pwp-ucr?

Any reason why we wouldn't?

Romain.

> 
> Dave
> 
> From: <Siegman>, "Siegman, Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 4:36 PM
> To: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Subject: [dpub] short title for PWP-UCR
> Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 4:37 PM
> 
> Hi All,
>  
> We neglected to choose a short title for the FPWD for the PWP Use Case document.  Please vote (+1/-1) for
>  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/pwp <http://www.w3.org/TR/pwp>
>  
> Thank you,
> Tzviya
>  
> Tzviya Siegman
> Information Standards Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
>  
> This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.