RE: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

 

I am not sure if the editors get 2 full days. This is what we agreed on the last call:

TC members need to get all editorial comments by Oct 18, and the kavi ballots will be initiated on the morning of Oct 20.

 

If you believe that you need 2 full days (which seems reasonable to me), we could request the following to the TC - Submit comments by Noon Pacifc of Oct 18 and open the ballot at Noon Pacific on Oct 20.

 

I also agree that it will be helpful for the TC if the editors proactively posted the anomalies, errors that they are aware of.

 

Thanks,

Sanjay

---

From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 12:55 PM
To: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document

As long as we get at least two days to incorporate changes to drafts before posting it to the tc, it should be ok.

 

As far as Anish's concern is concerned, I agree that we should not update the docs. I am wondering however whether we should inform the tc about such anomalies so that we don't hear from multiple folks about the same problem in order to indicate that we are aware of the issue and it will be fixed.

 

 

--umit

 

 

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, Oct 08, 2005 3:19 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document

this raises the question of how to handle any fixes for the draft CDs.  Resetting the 2-week clock each time isn't good.  So I suggest that at the end of the 2 weeks we post another diff'd version - where the original version is the draft CD w/all changes accepted - and the diff'd version shows just the changes we made since the posting of the draft CDs.  In there we can include the fix to the section 4 formatting.
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

10/07/2005 08:46 PM

To	"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
cc	ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document

Umit,

Thanks for pointing this out. You're right, we need to do 'Tools->Update
All' before generating the PDFs. I looked at the two docs (more pairs of
eyes are most welcome) -- sxw and pdf versions -- and the only problem
that I saw (wrt updating of indexes) was with the 'Table of Contents'.
Fortunately, there is no problem with the line numbers. So this in
itself would not require us to generate another draft.

But I noticed another problem. In the #2 version at [1] updated by Gil,
the formating for 'Fault', section 4, was removed. As a result the old
section 4 was included as subsections of 3. This got carried forward in
subsequent drafts (if you recall I had pointed this out earlier on this
ML [2]).

Not sure if this requires us to generate another draft that is uploaded
to the main TC page. Since the 2 week clock started yesterday, changing
the daft now may make some people unhappy. If folks look at the diff-ed
version though it is much clearer as to what happened.

I'm inclined not to do any updates to the main page right now and
include this as a change when we approve the CD at the end of the two
week's period.

Thoughts?

-Anish
--

[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.php/14670/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.sxw
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/email/archives/200509/msg00056.html

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I ran into this problem today with Policy spec and realized that the
> posted version for WSRM spec has a similar issue (I corrected mine
> before posting it though :-))
>
> When you generate pdfs (no change bars) either after accepting
> changes/turning of change bars, you must regenerate the indexes from
> Tools. Otherwise, the index does not align with the spec sections and
> pages.
>
> Just another day in paradise,
>
> --umit
>
>