RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

What do you mean by "document policy"? If the main TC has a problem with
our deliverables (PDF's, schema, WSDL, etc.) then we should talk about
that. Anything related to how the editors do their work is just an
invitation for everyone to mouth off about things that don't effect them
. . .

- g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:46 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Gilbert Pilz; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me of a possible agenda item for this week's 
> call - discuss document policy. Are the editors prepared to 
> present and discuss the process/policy you are following. Who 
> is planning to take the lead?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yalcinalp, Umit
> > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 13:36 PM
> > To: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; Anish Karmarkar
> > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > 
> > Sounds like another note for your process document, Gil.
> > 
> > +1 to use the latest version and please DO document this. 
> > 
> > --umit
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 12:09 PM
> > > To: Patil, Sanjay; Anish Karmarkar
> > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > 
> > > Splitting out the schema and wsdl files caused a problem that we 
> > > should have forseen; since the files are now separate 
> artifacts they 
> > > can change independently of one another. For example, 
> suppose we had 
> > > wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.odt that included 
> > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl to make 
> wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-10.pdf. Now 
> > > we make some changes to wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.odt and are 
> preparing to 
> > > publish it as wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-11.pdf. The WSDL file 
> hasn't changed 
> > > so do
> > we include
> > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wd-10.wsdl or do we create a 
> > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-11.wsdl (which is exactly the same as the 
> > > previous
> > > version) or what? It seems counter-intuitive to me to 
> create a new 
> > > version of an artifact that is exactly the same as the previous 
> > > version solely for the purpose of trackig another artifact.
> > > 
> > > I was thinking that, since schema and WSDL file changes 
> are rare, we 
> > > should just let Kavi take care of all the versions of
> > > wsrm*-1.1-*-200510.* and always include "the latest 
> version" when we 
> > > generate PDF's for public consumption.
> > > 
> > > - g
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:14 AM
> > > > To: Anish Karmarkar; Gilbert Pilz
> > > > Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> > > > 
> > > > > Does anybody feel that we should name the files something
> > > along the
> > > > > lines:
> > > > > wsrm-1.1-wsdl-200510-wdXX.xsd.
> > > > 
> > > > As per the resolution of issue i074 [1], the TC 
> accepted to name 
> > > > the final wsdl and xsd files as wsrm-1.1.wsdl and wsrm-1.1.xsd 
> > > > respectively.
> > > > I understand that this is not helpful for naming the 
> wsdl and xsd 
> > > > files for WDs and CDs. How about including the 
> <status>-<revision> 
> > > > just before the file extension? For example, the CD II 
> wsdl file 
> > > > would be named - wsrm-1.1-cd-02.wsdl
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue
> > > > s.xml#i074
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>