Hello TC,
agreeing with the suggestion:
“… fix this bug; have the TC confirm the change being "non-material"; and then continue the process…”
Regards,
Alexander Haag
-Software Engineer-
----------------------------------
WeWebU Software AG – Unleashing Your Enterprise Information
WeWebU Software AG
Hauptstr. 14
91074 Herzogenaurach
Germany
alexander.haag@wewebu.com
http://www.wewebu.com
http://www.openworkdesk.org
Sitz / Domicile: Herzogenaurach, Deutschland
Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand / Executive Board: Stefan Waldhauser (Vorsitzender / Chairman), Jens Dahl
Aufsichtsrat / Supervisory Board: Michael Salleck (Vorsitzender / Chairman), Thomas Leitner, Ruth Diringer
Registergericht / Register Court: Fürth, Bay.
Registernummer / Register Number: HRB 12083
From: cmis@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cmis@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of David Choy
Sent: Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2012 21:47
To: cmis@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cmis] Response to public comment on Paths
To all,
We received the following public comment and we need to decide our action quickly:
"2.1.5.3 Paths
The algorithm to calculate the path needs a special case for root (to be in line with the example).
Otherwise the path of folder A would be //A.
An alternative more regular solution would be for paths of folders to always end with a slash.
For example /, /A/, /A/B/
Although it is more difficult to spec to be compatible with 1.0."
Section 2.1.5.3 is meant to define Paths similar to conventional file system paths. The apparent deviation reported in this comment indicated we have a bug. My suggestion is to fix this bug; have the TC confirm the change being "non-material"; and then continue the process. The recently revised approval process allowed "non-material change", so our delay would be just the editing time plus 1 week of electronic ballot. However, if the TC failed to confirm that the change is "non-material", then we have to re-start the entire approval process: first approve the revised draft as a CSD, then approve it for public review and conduct a new 15-day public review for the change. This would add at least another month to the process besides editing.
An alternative is to keep the current description as-is. Then revise the spec through an Errata after v1.1 is approved as an OASIS Standard. Time-wise, an Errata for v1.1 won't come out until the end of 2013 or later. This approach would reflect to the public a choice for expedience over quality for v1.1.
Please reply to this email with your thoughts before Friday so we can decide if we need next Monday's TC meeting to discuss this. If the responses seem to agree, one way or another, we will proceed accordingly without further delay. Please indicate if you consider such change being "material" or "non-material", and which of the two ways suggested in the public comment that we should use to fix this section (if you care).
Thanks.
David