OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[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 

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.


[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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]