[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330
From: "John Borras" <john@pensive.eu>
Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 6:04 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "eml " <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">DavidJust to be clear what you are proposing:On the 120-330 Compare sheet all the entries in orange would be added to the 330 and then we delete the 120?We keep the 230 but add a Source item?What happens to the 130?JohnFrom: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 31 March 2009 20:51
To: eml
Subject: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330
Team,OK - went back and reviewed everything and significantly improved the dictionary compare XSLT processing.Adding in the 230 definately completes the other pieces of the puzzle.Attached Excel spreadsheet.I believe this shows we are very close - most items do indeed match as Paul thought.Reviewing the 120 to combined worksheet - following suggestions:- 178 - we add a Source node to 230 and 330 - that tracks original source of content.I am seeing that the remaining items in the 120 relate to physical transfer of content - and hence are more of a "result report" that a batch process would produce - rather than something we should perscribe into the standard. Typically this would all be external to the EML - a results report - that a SQL or similar process e.g a DIFF) would produce.Thoughts everyone?Thanks, DW
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]