Re: [ws-tx] PR specifications

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

In our case the primary reason we actually
need to nominate one of these formats as authoritative is in case the process
of generating the PDF/HTML caused some divergence from the Word source.
I have seen this happen with hyperlinks (although I hope we will catch
any of these and fix them as part of the review process). If it does happen,
then I think it makes more sense for the authoritative version to be the
source format rather than the generated format. That doesn't mean that
everybody always needs to look only at the authoritative format - the reason
we have different formats is so that people can work with their favourite
format. The main reason you'd need to look specifically at the authoritative
format is simply to resolve any discrepencies caused by the PDF/HTML generation.

Regards,
Ian Robinson

Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>

07/05/2008 23:38

To	Ian Robinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc	ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-tx] PR specifications

Is there a concern about the use of a proprietary
format that not  
everyone will be able to read, as the authoritative version?
Personally, i think i'd prefer pdf (with sticky line numbers), but  
that is purely a matter of personal taste.

     cheers,
     jeff

On May 06, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Ian Robinson wrote:
>
> The recent ballot to approve the start of a public review of our  
> 1.2 specs concluded successfully.  We are required to submit
HTML  
> and PDF as well as editable source (in our case, Word doc) formats
 
> of the specs. We are also now required to nominate which one of  
> these formats is authoritative with respect to the others. (This is
 
> different from the recent discussion and resolution on precedence
 
> or specification and wsdl/schema).
>
> So, as a TC, we need to agree whether to state that the source  
> format (Word) or one of the generated (PDF or HTML) formats is the
 
> authoritative format.
> Are there any objections to nominating the source format as the  
> authoritative format?
>
> Please respond with any comments by the end of this week so we can
 
> proceed to PR.
>
> Regards,
> Ian Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
 
> PO6 3AU
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky              
               
               
                 
               
              jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards    
            +1(650) 
506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff            
               
               
                 500
Oracle Parkway, M/ 
S 2OP9
Oracle                
                 
               
                 
               
                 
               
                 Redwood
Shores, CA 94065

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature