Bob, I think the draft seems mostly reasonable. A couple of points:
- on the format of dates like "15 Mar 2004": it has been standard in
astronomy for at least a century to write "2004 Mar 15", which has the
merits of being Europe/US-neutral and in the same order as ISO-8601
but more readable.
- on watermarks: my own experience is that when online, it is easy enough
just to go to the depository to get the latest version of the doc, the
problem arises when you have a hardcopy - or, usually in my case, 15
hardcopies all slightly different - and its origin is unclear. In that
case the digital watermark doesn't help. I fear adding non-trivial overhead
to the process in a way that won't actually help much.
I think the introduction of the Working Group Working Draft (what has been
called Internal Draft up to now, which I mildly prefer) solves a lot
of the problem if we are disciplined enough to use it.
Received on 2004-03-16Z15:48:27