Re: changes before uploading

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Jeff,

I am copying the IF-SC with this so that they know that I've looked at 
this in depth and agree with all the changes you have made. The 
formatting and references were things I missed and the fine print 
details are as well. The footer and date properly reflects the date it 
was voted out of the IF SC. The details of the code examples are 
apparently artifacts from reformatting, and I agree with them. The 
marginal change in (4) is justified on the basis of having no change in 
the meaning of the text and getting the link on one line is worth the 
change.

So please Accept all changes and upload the clean version to the TC 
documents page and also send a separate message announcing that you have 
uploaded even though Kavi sends out a notice. I don't know about 
everyone else, but I don't usually even open those notification 
messages. Please include the url link from the document so that people 
don't need to go look for it.

That last detail is the one thing that the Kavi notification does that I 
do pay attention to if I happen to be waiting for a document, but only 
if I'm actually waiting for it.

Cheers,
Rex

Jeff Waters wrote:
> Rex:
>
>   Please take a look at these  changes to the Basics document. After 
> looking at it again closely, I made these changes:
> (1) Added Dave's wording (this change isn't marked but you'll see it 
> there if you look)
> (2) Changed date on cover and footnote (since fine print refers to 
> this date as when it was approved)
> (3) Changed fine print wording in a few spots (since it referred to 
> "this specification", changed to "this document")
> (4) Rearranged a couple words about DHS recommending DE so that a long 
> link would fit on the line (just so it would look better)
> (5) Added back in the "References" section (in case this was an 
> oversight when we switched formats and also because third to last 
> paragraph in Section 6 mentions "see reference [5]")
> (6) Note that there is no legend for Appendix B for what bold font 
> means or italic font, etc. (I didn't add one or make any changes in 
> this regard, I just mention it in case you think we need one)
> (7) I removed a couple spaces in the <polygon> references in Appendix 
> C (that were misplaced or added probably when reformatting)
> (8) Reformatted to recover the "4.2 The DE Distribution Tags" header 
> which was lost in the formatting. (The wording was there, but the 
> formatting was wrong. As you'll note in second paragraph of Section 4, 
> there is a mention of "three sets of XML elements ("tags"): the Header 
> tags, the Distribution tags, and the Content Wrapper tags".)
> (8) Updated the table of contents
>
> Let me know if these changes are ok, or if you would prefer to handle 
> them differently. I didn't want to change the spirit of the document 
> in terms of what was approved beyond Dave's wording. I believe the 
> most significant of these changes (beyond reformatting to recover the 
> Section 4.2 header) is the date change and the addition of the 
> References.  I don't mind removing the references and then removing 
> the reference to the references, if you prefer. I looked over the 
> references and thought they might be helpful and so included.  Either 
> way.
>
> --Jeff
>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670