Status of the editorial master work

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

As you may have noticed, schedules remain unmet for our editorial team.  I 
am the culprit.

Here is the history: Last week, Mark, Jacques and I divided the 
specification into three and set out to apply the various action items to 
the individual sections.  We also worked diligently to improve the language 
of the text, illuminating the meaning where it was hidden under passive 
voice and misuse of RFC 2119 terms.  The issues we covered are entirely 
editorial, based either on TC decisions or word smithing.

The word smithing part should not be taken as a comment on the yeoman's 
work Iwasa has been doing.  Our snippets of resolution text often took 
short cuts in language which resulted in the problems mentioned above. 
This is not an entirely unexpected problem.[1]

Jacques and Mark provided their updated documents on Monday, meeting a 
deadline I had requested so that I could begin the merge process.

Monday night and Tuesday morning, I made a few mistakes about some general 
formating issues and the merge itself which I have been attempting to 
untangle since.  Suffice it to say I could upload three separate documents 
but not one at this point.  StarOffice is churning in the background[2] and 
may eventually reduce that number to two.

Right now, I am going to sleep and hoping to catch up a bit on last night.

Tomorrow morning, I will revert some of the changes I made to my copy of 
the specification, do the merge manually, then work on the document-wide 
stuff and see what action items I have missed.  Expect something in the 
early afternoon but remember how optimistic I was last time :(

thanx,
	doug

[1] If anybody would like to see the general rules we used to correct the 
RFC 2119 issues in particular, I would be happy to send them along.

[2] Nice to see that "Not responding" really means "Working harder than it 
likes but still working"...