[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document
Ok, I will be assuming that -- we do not make public changes to the tc doc repository in those 2 virtual days. -- we will post the final documents to the tc doc repository just before the ballot opens at October 20th incorporating all the suggested changes. Sounds right? --umit > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Sanjay > Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 2:27 PM > To: Paul Fremantle > Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document > > > > OK. For some reason the minutes did not reflect the precise > deadline for the comments. I will clarify that in an email to > the TC as well as on the Thursday's call this week. > > On the second point, I was NOT suggesting that the editors > change the publicly visible documents until Oct 18th 9AM > Pacific. I was rather suggesting that the editors post to the > mailing list comments about any anomalies, errors in the > specs that they are aware of. This is simply to avoid > flooding of similar feedback from everybody. > > Thanks, > Sanjay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 14:21 PM > > To: Patil, Sanjay > > Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document > > > > 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/dow > > nload.php/14670/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.sxw > > > [2] > > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/ema > il/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 > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]