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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Updates to specs, revision bars

Hi Simon,

Simon Holdsworth wrote:
OF1D6019B6.50B7B267-ON80257520.003CE688-80257520.003DF2F5@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">

There were some concerns regarding spec revisions and naming that was used for the bindings specs when working on the RFC2119 resolution.  I understand that versions of the specs that contain proposed resolutions should not be named -cd01-revN.doc, but rather that a separately named document should be used to work on the resolution, which is then added to a revision of the spec document once resolved.

The problem that we now have is that we have gone through multiple revisions as we sorted out the various specs, with changes accepted in between, so that the latest revisions of the JCA and WS specs, at least, don't have all changes since the last CD marked with revision bars.

I'd like to get some feedback from the TC on how we proceed from here.

Is the expectation that between CD versions, the changes in the -revN documents mount up, and only get accepted when we move to the next CD, or is it OK to accept changes from revN to revN+1 ? ("accept changes" in the Microsoft word sense, rather than any TC sense).

If it is the latter, then we are OK to carry on from where we are.
If the former, then we have to do one of the following:

A) fix up the latest spec documents so that they show all changes since cd01.
Seems to me that the only "safe" way to handle CD02 is to get the latest round of edits, accept all changes, and then ask Word (or, in my case, OpenOffice) to do a comparison with the CD01 official version.  Otherwise, we might miss changes that slipped in via an accidental edit without revision tracking. Assuming MS Word or OpenOffice can do a decent job of showing those differences, isn't that the path to go down anyway?  If either of those cannot do a decent difference, then we might need to dig deeper....  So I would start by simply seeing how MS Word does with its comparison.
OF1D6019B6.50B7B267-ON80257520.003CE688-80257520.003DF2F5@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">B) accept the latest spec documents as CD02, and use that as the base for applying further revisions.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when we're voting for CD02, we're voting on the notion that all issues part of that CD revision have been applied as per the understanding of the TC.  Of course we'll want to review the document in its entirety for language, but if the ever so sneaky editors changed the meaning of a previously resolved issue, I presume it would only take a simple majority vote to get the change reverted.
OF1D6019B6.50B7B267-ON80257520.003CE688-80257520.003DF2F5@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">C) understand that when we do get to CD02, some of the changes made for RFC2119 statements will not be marked with revision bars.
Like I indicate above, my first step will be to do a full comparison with the original CD01, not any of the intervening revisions....  Hopefully that will work well.

Presumably editors could save us all some work by preparing a PDF that accomplishes the same thing.

OF1D6019B6.50B7B267-ON80257520.003CE688-80257520.003DF2F5@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">
Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

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