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

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

Yes, I think it makes sense to upload Gil's document to the repository.

There was some confusion about what should go on this week's agenda
regarding RDDL as well as namespace versioning policy. The plan is to
discuss on tomorrow's call: a> the scope of RDDL document, b> the scope
of namespace versioning policy, c> formal acceptance of the RDDL
document as well as the namespace versioning policy. 

Just to clarify, there won't be any agenda item for discussing the
procedure followed by editors. As Gil said earlier, the TC members can
make comments on the procedures document if anybody has any issue with
it.

Thanks,
Sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit 
> Sent: Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 10:29 AM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; 'Gilbert Pilz'; 'Anish Karmarkar'
> Cc: 'Doug Davis'; 'ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] tabs in xml
> 
> Sanjay, 
> 
> Gil has already sent a document to the list illustrating this 
> and worked on it quite a bit [1]. I reviewed it and it looks 
> good. Isn't this what you are asking about? 
> 
> My suggestion was to put the item about managing schema files 
> as a concrete addition to that document. I have not got 
> around to adding couple of statements about the revision 
> numbers and managing Kavi. 
> 
> I suggest we put Gil's document into the document repository. 
> As we need to add new procedures/new items update it as 
> necessary to refine it. 
> 
> Does that sound reasonable? 
> 
> 
> --umit
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archi
ves/200601/msg00076.html
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patil, Sanjay 
> > Sent: Tuesday, Jan 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
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>