I don’t understand the “doesn’t
see this issue” comment. Do you not see this in the pdf or in OO? We obviously need
good line numbers in the pdf to comment on the drafts. Right now the drafts
provided to the TC can’t really be used as baselines because of this issue.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:45 AM
To: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Latest WDs
Already fixed
the 15 vs 14 issue in the latest one. Dunno what to do about the line #
issue other than get one of the other editors (who doesn't see this issue) to
produce the pdf files - or revert back to the previous version of OO. Gil
did you ever hear from your friends at Sun(?) who were going to take a look at
this?
-Doug
The
WD15 draft tile page still says WD14. The line numbers of WD15 alternate,
randomly it seems, between 78, 79 and 80 from page 4 to page 60. Obviously we
can’t use this as a base doc if we can’t cite line numbers.
The
WD14 has line number issues as well, just not as extreme. Top of page 9 is a
good example.
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:56 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
[ws-rx] Latest WDs
All,
I believe all outstanding issues have been applied to the editor's
working drafts. One suggestion, by Marc, was to move the wsdl to be after
the schema (instead of after the sample messages) - we decided to do this
change as the first change in a new WD so that people could see that diff in
isolation. I've attached three pdf diffs to this note:
14-diff.pdf contains all of the outstanding
editorial and issue related changes since WD13
15-diff.pdf contains just the movement of the wsdl
section
10-diff.pdf contains WD10 of the policy spec
If there are additional changes needed please use WD15-diff.pdf's as the base
doc. If there is a different version of the docs that people would like to see
please let me know - hopefully, this addresses PaulC's concern mentioned on the
last TC call.
thanks
-Doug