Re: [ws-tx] PR specifications

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

I don't think there is any completely
right or completely wrong answer here but certainly some difference of
opinion. So far I see 2 folks speak in favour of Word and 2 in favour of
PDF so it looks like a 2 horse race. The easiest way to move on here will
simply be an electronic ballot. If anyone would like to contribute further
to this discussion, please do so by the end of this week. Unless we have
aligned ourselves on a single choice by then, I'll start a ballot. 

Regards,
Ian Robinson

Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>

08/05/2008 08:11

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

On May 07, 2008, at 11:19 PM, Ian Robinson wrote:
>
> 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.

that's pretty much the case for all specs, except the ones that start  
their life as html (assuming no one is actually editing in raw pdf ;-).

> 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.

how would a user know that there were any discrepancies except by  
looking at the authoritative source and comparing it to the,  
say .pdf? My point is that it doesn't seem reasonable to have the  
authoritative version be the one in the proprietary format. If users  
are not going to be forced to do that, then wouldn't "someone"
(the  
TC?) need to carefully inspect the pdf (or html) to make sure it is  
indeed correct and doesn't have any discrepancies. Once that task is  
done, then why can't it be the authoritative version?

cheers,
   jeff



>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
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