[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please
Mary, OK - so then we just include a note that this Committee Spec' has dependency on an errata to an existing OASIS standard - and that that errata will be handled separately as OASIS standard update - but details of that are available in {link to kavi zip file} Correct? DW > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > From: "Mary McRae" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 9:30 am > To: "'David RR Webber \(XML\)'" <david@drrw.info>, > <kumar.sydney@gmail.com> > Cc: <ciq@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Hi David, > > There is no provision for errata against a Committee Specification; only > against an OASIS Standard. > > Regards, > > Mary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:17 AM > > To: kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > > Ram, > > > > What is the issue with xAL errata? I'm not seeing why this is a big deal - > > its just errata - and therefore relate to the existing xAL. Just because > > its in the same review package - is not confusing or unclear. The package > > is xPRL 3.1 + xAL errata needed to support that. > > > > I'd grab that 15 day review!!! > > > > DW > > > > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [ciq] RE: IMPORTANT - Your suggestions please > > > From: kumar.sydney@gmail.com > > > Date: Tue, March 11, 2008 12:29 am > > > To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > If we do option 2, this could be a problem as the namespaces of the > > schemas have to be changed from urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xnl:3 to > > urn:oasis:names:tc:ciq:xxx:31. I do not want this to happen as it will > > impact the current implementers of V3.0. This is NOT the IDEAL solution and > > it looks ugly. I also need to change all original v3.0 documents that do > > not discuss xPRL to now discuss about xPRL. > > > > > > The introduction of xPRL should not have any impact on current users > > except xAL schema errata. > > > > > > Releasing xPRL v3.0 on its own looks good except that I do not know how > > to release the xAL v3.0 schema errata. Any release of xAL V3.0 schema > > errata on its own is not possible. It has to go with V3.1 release of the > > original V3.0 specs. If we have had individual specs. for xNL, xAL, xNAL > > and xPIL (like in v2.0), we could have release V3.1 xAL specs. that covers > > the errata. > > > > > > Therefore, I am confused. Not sure how to approach this problem! > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ram > > > ------------------------------ > > > TC Members, > > > > > > OASIS TC Admin have come back to my request for 60 days public review of > > xPRL V3.0. As per TC process, only the following can be done: > > > > > > - Release V3.1 (of November 2007 release) with xAL errata fix for 15 days > > public review > > > > > > or > > > > > > - Package xPRL V3.0 and xAL errata as part of a new version of CIQ > > (Version 3.1 and includes specs. released in Nov. 2007) for 60 days public > > review > > > > > > Please let me know your suggestions. Looks like the later is better. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ram > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in > > OASIS > > at: > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]