[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Multiple variants of ebXML 2.0 "OASIS Standard" document
Ian, perhaps you can provide some of the history here. For the TC, this is a general question about the base for all issues on our list. I have just noticed that we have at least 3 versions of our 2.0c specification. They are, in order: a. What seems like the earliest file, available inside a Zip file[1] and directly[2] (both within our Kavi documents directory). This document has an internal document date (identified on the title page) of 21 February 2002 and was last edited on that date. The corresponding Word document is available within the Zip file[1] and but not directly (that I can find). b. An edit to reflect completion of the OASIS standardisation process or OASIS template requirements (which?), with an updated internal document date (1 April 2002) that was last edited on 15 March 2002. Apart from the updated dates (including the page headers), this version includes an new "Intellectual Property Rights Statement" section and updated Disclaimer and Copyright Statement on the final page. The table of contents lists that new section, making line numbers one higher for the bulk of the document (everything after that table). This is available on our site[3] (in the Kavi directory) and the ebXML.org site[4]. The Word source [5,6] is also available. c. An edit that seems to start from the first document above (and not the second). This document has an internal document date of 21 February 2002 and was last edited on 19 August 2002. Links in the PDF are bordered (making the text hard to read) and include a number of "Error! Hyperlink reference not valid." annotations. I see no differences from the first document except these invalid hyperlinks though that additional text adds 2 lines to every line number after the "Status of this Document" section (and one more after the [XMLDSIG] bibliographic entry near the end). Page numbers are also one higher for most of the specification. The footers are slightly different on a few pages, including the title page. I have no idea about the purpose of this document. I am in the midst of updating the issues list to point to problem or solution locations within the PDF version of our specification. Unfortunately, the differences above result in different line numbers depending upon the document version chosen. I propose to use document (a) and thereby provide a consistent base for everything in the issues list. Does someone strongly prefer I use (b)? Please, no comments about using line numbers other than from the PDF files. Any other choice means we all see different line numbers due to different editor versions, printers and printer drivers. thanx, doug [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/1167/ebMS-2.0c.zip [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/269/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf [3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.pdf [4] http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebMS2.pdf [5] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.doc [6] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/271/ebMS_v2_0.doc [7] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]