[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] Comment on TGF-Primer Public Review Draft 02 - Document formatting and section numbering
Chet, Thanks for this. I will simply record a comment against the issue that the changes to the text were unintentional post-processing effects and that the TC merely wishes to approve
the text as initially submitted, so no further review is required. Cheers, Peter Peter F Brown Independent Consultant P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 From: Chet Ensign [mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-open.org]
I will do a side-by-side comparison on the next publication to eliminate all or as many of these publication problems as I can. Because we are publishing using typical word processing tools, some line numbering
or pagination problems *may* persist but I will do my best to ensure we keep the artifacts as close to one another as possible. At this point, you should simply make the motion to request that TC Admin start the special majority ballot to approve as Committee Note / Committee Spec. I would use motion language like ""The
public review for Transformational Government Framework Primer Version 1.0 announced in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201111/msg00013.html being complete and no comments having Also, to create a comment resolution log, you can simply send an email to the TC mailing list saying something like "The
public review for Transformational Government Framework Primer Version 1.0 announced in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201111/msg00013.html is closed. No comments were received." Then you can use the link for that email in the form to request
the Special Majority Ballot. Best,
/chet On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> wrote:
OK, understood.
However, there are still a few problems: -
The pdf text approved by the Committee contained a comment at line 9 stating “This disclaimer can now be removed”. This was approved by the TC, but remained in the pdf as
published. As the TC’s next step will – presumably – be to approve the CNPRD02, unamended, as a Committee Note – then this disclaimer text can be removed at that stage – otherwise it makes no sense: the disclaimer refers to the fact that the note is a draft-
from the moment it is not, it clearly needs to go; -
Even though we scrupulously followed the OASIS template, the pdf generated by your service has changed pagination and formatting in several places (every page has one fewer
line of text per page, throwing pagination and line-numbering out; changes in typeface or colour; changes in table formatting; inconsistent changes in caption type; footnotes displaced and broken up; “ghost” lines appearing in some figures; extraneous blank
lines added); the type is considerably fainter and more difficult to read; and in certain figures, image lines drop completely;
There is one similar issue, I note now, with the TGF-PL-Core CSPRD02 – as the Table of Contents seems to have been auto-re-generated, thus losing some of the manually included section
headings in the original WD05.
In light of this, and the fact that, to date, we have no further comments submitted to the respective public reviews and thus we are likely to be in a position at the TC meeting
on Thursday to move both documents to approval – could you advise us of the best formulation of motions for approval? Or do we simply (if that is the path we choose) vote to ask the TC Administration to open the requisite ballots for approval as CN and CS?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel:
+1.310.694.2278
From: Chet Ensign [mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-open.org]
Sorry, I dodged the question didn't I.
What I meant by that is that purely formatting changes generally would, under the current regime, trigger a new review cycle - if those formatting changes were being requested to the content that the TC had approved. This is another example of the situation
where a seemingly trivial change would nevertheless cause another round of review.
We are in the clear in this case though because you haven't asked me to change what the TC approved, just get it right in its publication.
/chet
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> wrote:
Thanks Chet, that’s great – do you agree in any case, that purely formatting changes, if needed, do not constitute a revision that would require a new cycle of review?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Chet Ensign
Hi Peter -
/chet
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> wrote:
Hi,
The formatting and section numbering in the document published by OASIS is different from the document submitted for publication
Just a small reserve that should not lead to a further public review: spurious, incorrectly nested and ultimately misleading numbering has been added throughout the document.
Either the numbering system introduced (by whom?) should be consistent with the document’s intended structure; or should be removed. It was not in the deliverable approved by the TC.
Regards,
Peter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel:
+1.310.694.2278
--
--
-- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]