Improvements to our editorial workflow

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Retitling...

I've already filed an issue to fix these and the other editorial issues
that came up in the CD. 

I'm raising this to point out that we need to adopt some of the
proposals that have been made to improve the checks we need to give each
other before important drafts like a CD are published to the TC. 

The number one improvement I would suggest is that we not publish a CD
before someone, not the last one to work on the doc, takes a pass over
it.
It's better to wait another week to get the CD to the TC so that we can
make sure it is of high quality than let these types of errors through. 

You took on the work to prepare the CDs and asked all of us to provide
you feedback on them (which is a lot less work than what you took on).
To the best of my knowledge none of us was conscientious enough to get
back to you before the docs were posted. While I appreciate wanting to
get the CDs out before the following call I think their accuracy should
take precedence.

We can see this as a test run since there wasn't a call for public
review. If I'm not mistaken there will be for the next one. We need to
make sure we improve our process to catch issues like this before that
CD gets released.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:32 PM
To: Marc Goodner; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05

Let's fix 'em in wd06 and move on.

- g 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:39 AM
> To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> 
> Not a single one of these made it into the CD (other than the 
> status stuff that changed anyway). I don't think these should 
> have required an issue to get addressed in the CD. Perhaps 
> the multiple definition one, but the other ones are clear 
> editorial mistakes. A whole lot more were introduced between 
> this draft and the CD.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> 
> And another thing, receive is defined twice (and differently 
> each time) at lines 237 and 246.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:58 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> 
> Sorry, 4 below is more wrong than I thought. After line 3 and 
> before line 4 Document Identifier exists on the first page as 
> a title and with no line number. That should be after a page 
> break and line 4 should be
> wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05 with 05 probably being whatever the next 
> revision number is. Also I guess this means line 60 should 
> say WD right?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:42 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> 
> Here are some other editorial issues I've found by line number.
> 
> 4 Still identified as ED draft
> 60 Shouldn't that be CD?
> 184 extra space between accurately and determine
> 187 The capitalized incorrectly, should be the
> 633 Why does this line start with OPTIONAL? Any other 
> optional elements/attributes are called out in the immediate 
> line after they are declared. Furthermore I'm not sure this 
> is optional, it is an extensibility point and as such I don't 
> think anyone is supposed to barf if it is used. Earlier in 
> the spec it clearly says unknown extensions should be ignored.
> 1141, 1155, 1159, 1160 undefined namespace prefix of ws is 
> used, should be xs
> 
> Not sure if I'll get to the policy doc today or not, I'll try.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:22 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> 
> All,
> 
> The editors would like to point out three ed issues against WSRM WD-05
> [1]:
> 
> 1) The pages numbers in the 'Table of Contents' aren't 
> correct. OO requires that all the indexes be regenerated once 
> changes are accepted, before generating the PDF. That was not 
> done before generating the PDF at [1].
> 
> 2) There was a editorial regression. Line 678 in [1] says:
> "to the element.Faults"
> This really should be:
> "to the element." and "Faults" should be on a new line and 
> formated as a
> 
> separate section (section 4). Because of this regression, 
> subsections that were previously subsections of section 4 are 
> now subsections of 3 instead.
> 
> 3) Robin Cover pointed out an editorial bug on line 124. 
> Given that our NS ends with a trailing '/' 
> (http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/200510/),
> line 124 should be:
> "reliable messaging namespace URI concatenated with the"
> instead of:
> "reliable messaging namespace URI concatenated with the "/" 
> character and the"
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> p/14785/ws
> rm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
>