Re: [sca-bindings] Document names and URLs

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Simon Holdsworth wrote:
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I'm OK with not mentioning this option.
> 

I agree. I don't see the need to mention this. SimonN, in his email, 
provides two ways to achieve what we would like. We should just leave it 
at that.

-Anish
--

> 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
> 
> 
> *Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>*
> 
> 18/06/2009 21:25
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, Simon 
> Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> cc
> 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> 	Re: [sca-bindings] Document names and URLs
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>  > Simon Holdsworth wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Simon,
>  >>
>  >> Look OK; there's also the option that we leave the existing
>  >> documents/URLs entirely alone, and leave the old form latest URL
>  >> pointing at CD01 forever, although I think thats the least desirable
>  >> all round.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I agree that this is least desirable.
>  > Abandoning a 'latest URL', is not a good idea, it defeats the whole
>  > purpose of laving a latest URL.
>  >
> Should I add this to the note (with the comment that it's least
> desirable), or not mention it?
> 
>   Simon
> 
>  > -Anish
>  > --
>  >> 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
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> *Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>*
>  >>
>  >> 18/06/2009 11:48
>  >>
>  >>    
>  >> To
>  >>     OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
>  >> cc
>  >>    
>  >> Subject
>  >>     Re: [sca-bindings] Document names and URLs
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>    
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Based on the discussion on last week's call, here's a new draft
>  >> of the note to Mary.  Is this OK?
>  >>
>  >>   Simon
>  >>
>  >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  >>
>  >> Mary,
>  >> The Bindings TC discussed the naming issue and has decided to revert
>  >> to the previous names in the short term so that the process of getting
>  >> to public review can be expedited and is not blocked on the naming
>  >> issue.  The Bindings TC also decided to continue to pursue the adoption
>  >> of its previously agreed new naming convention with OASIS TC Admin.
>  >>
>  >> The TC would like to begin publishing new versions of its documents
>  >> using the new naming convention and new form of URLs as soon as
>  >> possible.  For documents that have already been published using the
>  >> existing naming convention, the TC would like to leave these in place
>  >> at their current URLs.
>  >>
>  >> For each of the affected documents, the TC would like to create
>  >> new "latest" URLs that match the new naming conventions.  For the
>  >> current "latest" URLs, there are two options:
>  >>
>  >> 1) For each of the affected documents, use an HTTP redirect from
>  >>    the current "latest" URL to the new "latest" URL.  These redirects
>  >>    can be set up as a one-time operation, so that as the documents
>  >>    referenced by the new-form "latest" URLs change in the future,
>  >>    these documents will automatically also become available at the
>  >>    current old-form "latest" URLs.
>  >>
>  >> 2) Every time a new document is published, both the new-form
>  >>    "latest" URL and the old-form "latest" URL would be re-linked to
>  >>    point to the new document.  This does not require any HTTP
>  >>    redirects, but it does require additional re-linking of "latest"
>  >>    URLs each time new versions of the documents are published.
>  >>
>  >> The TC would be willing to accept either of these approaches.  Which
>  >> of them would be most convenient for OASIS TC Admin and IT Services?
>  >>
>  >>   Simon
>  >>
>  >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  >>
>  >> Simon Nash wrote:
>  >>  > I took an action last week to follow up with Mary on this
>  >>  > subject.  Here is the proposed note that I am intending to send.
>  >>  > Any comments or suggestions for changes?
>  >>  >
>  >>  >   Simon
>  >>  >
>  >>  > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Mary,
>  >>  > The Bindings TC discussed the naming issue and has decided to revert
>  >>  > to the previous names in the short term so that the process of 
> getting
>  >>  > to public review can be expedited and is not blocked on the naming
>  >>  > issue.  The Bindings TC also decided to continue to pursue the
>  >> adoption
>  >>  > of its previously agreed new naming convention with OASIS TC Admin.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >  From the discussion on the mailing list and the discussion on the
>  >>  > TC call last week, it seems there are two possible options for
>  >>  > managing this renaming without causing problems for users who have
>  >>  > already downloaded the documents or linked to the existing URLs.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > 1) Create latest and current version URLs following the new
>  >>  >    naming convention, and use these URLs for new documents going
>  >>  >    forward as well as for the documents that have already been
>  >>  >    published, with redirection from the old URLs to the new URLs.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > 2) Leave the existing latest and current version URLs in place for
>  >>  >    the documents that have already been published, and create latest
>  >>  >    and current version URLs following the new naming convention
>  >>  >    for new versions of these documents going forward.  (It would
>  >>  >    also be possible to duplicate the documents that have already
>  >>  >    been published under the new URL naming convention if this is
>  >>  >    considered useful.)
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Of these, option 1 seems simplest and this would be the TC's
>  >>  > preferred solution.  If OASIS cannot support this for technical
>  >>  > reasons, the TC would be willing to consider option 2 as a
>  >>  > fallback alternative.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >   Simon
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>  > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>  >>  > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>  >>  > 
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>  >> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>  >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >>
>  >> /
>  >> /
>  >>
>  >> /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/
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>  > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>  > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> /
> /
> 
> /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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>