[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'll email three ed issues that I know of to the TC: 1) pages numbers in TOC are incorrect 2) section 4 formatting 3) Issue about value of action URI (pointed out by Robin) -Anish -- Patil, Sanjay wrote: > > 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]