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

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Sanjay

I thought I had said on the call all comments by 9am Pacific Oct 18th, 
and then the final version to be available for the ballot to start 9am 
Pacific Oct 20th.

I agree thoroughly that it would be good if we could have edits in place 
before then, so if no-one finds any more anomalies then the doc need not 
change from 18th->20th.

Paul


Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>  
> 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
>         >
>         >
>


-- 

Paul Fremantle
Vice President of Technology
WSO2, "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
paul@wso2.com