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

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Here is the cut-paste from the last conf-call minutes at [1]. Please let me know if I am missing something here. If the minutes are incorrect, then we should let Tom know about that.

--------------------------------------
Gil the OASIS guidelines require it by CS.

Anish: The TC has never accepted the policy for documents send by the editors.

Ø  Action: Chairs to put the editors document policy on agenda for next meeting.
---------------------------------------- 

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200601/msg00079.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Jan 17, 2006 13:53 PM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; Yalcinalp, Umit; Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Doug Davis; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> 
> 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
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>