Hi Drummond,
Well, this only went into effect on the 1st of this
month, so you are, indeed, the first. My feeling is that the authoritative
version should be the version that the editors actually worked with and not
something that’s the result of a conversion process – I’ve spent too many years
working with document conversion and know they’re never perfect. I also have
examples of PDFs that look different on different user’s systems (dependent on
some myriad of variables of course). That said, I lost that argument with the
Process Committee, and they decided to leave the choice up to the TC.
If you want to use something other than the Word file I’ll
send the document back to you to convert and verify.
Mary
From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 5:22 PM
To: 'Gabe Wachob'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution
Committee Draft 03
I’m also cool with PDF as long as we check the conversion (we need
to anyway). But let me turn this back into a question to Mary: what are other
TCs doing? Are they electing to use their editable source as the authoritative
file, or one of the other two formats?
And in the end, does it really matter that much, i.e., aren’t all
outputs supposed to be identical (and shouldn’t they be proofed for that
purpose)? However, there is always the potential for errors that won’t get
caught, so it seems the me the SAFEST position to take is declare our editable
source as the authoritative version.
But I don’t feel strongly about this, so I’ll defer to Mary’s
recommendation.
=Drummond
From: gwachob@gmail.com
[mailto:gwachob@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:10 PM
To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Re: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee
Draft 03
But we can check this
post-conversion, right?
So if we could be careful to make sure the conversion was correct, I would
still vote for PDF... after all it is supposed to be *portable* ;)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
wrote:
Hi Gabe,
The problem is that
sometimes characters don't convert properly in PDF files – I've had several
occasions where graphics are misplaced or schemas or xml examples are corrupted
with bogus symbols.
Regards,
Mary
I'd prefer PDF... since its less likely to have
any issues with readers, version skew, etc.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
wrote:
Mary,
Yes, I saw that when reviewing the message you sent out about the recent
revisions to the TC process, and it makes sense to me.
Since we have always used Word as our editable source, I think it makes the
most sense to declare that as authoritative.
Gabe or anyone else: do you see any reason not to declare the Word version
our authoritative version?
=Drummond
> Subject: RE: Request for Public Review of
XRI Resolution Committee Draft
> 03
>
> Hi Drummond,
>
> I just need one more thing. The new TC Process (effective 1 March
2008)
> requires the TC to declare one of the 3 versions as authoritative (word,
> html or
> pdf).
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-02-05.php#specQuality
> (5th para)
>
> Just let me know which one. The intent is in the case of discrepancy due
> to
> conversions or export routines, etc.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mary
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 3:34 PM
> > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Cc: gwachob@gmail.com;
xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Request for Public Review of XRI Resolution Committee Draft
03
> >
> > Mary,
> >
> > I am pleased to say the vote to approve XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee
> Draft
> > 03 and submit it for a 15-day Public Review closed last night and it
> passed
> > unanimously, with 18 of 21 voting members voting. A copy of the
ballot
> > closure notice is included below.
> >
> > Per my conversation with you, following are the authoritative links
you
> > need
> > for the Public Review documents:
> >
> > 1) Normative Word version of the specification on which we held the
vote
> > (XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 04 Revision 04):
> >
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27431/xri-resolution-
> > V2.0-
> > cd-02-rv-04.doc
> >
> >
> > 2) Normative RelaxNG files referenced from pages 23 and Appendix B of
> the
> > spec.
> >
> > xrds.rnc
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27422/xrds.rnc
> >
> > xrd.rnc
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27421/xrd.rnc
> >
> > (Note that the pointers in the OASIS repositories to the latest
version
> of
> > these files, referenced on lines 387 and 388 of the spec, will need
to
> be
> > updated too.)
> >
> >
> > 3) Per the comment on line 3772 in Appendix C, the link to the latest
> > xrd.xsd file needs to be changed to:
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27430/xrd-v2.0.xsd
> >
> > (Note that the xrds.xsd file did not change.)
> >
> > 4) Lastly, since we will also be submitting XRI Syntax 2.0 Committee
> > Specification for the OASIS Standard vote, the authoritative link to
the
> > normative Word document for this specification is:
> >
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/download.php/15375/xri-
> > synt
> > ax-V2.0-cs.doc
> >
> > Besides the need to store this document in the docs.oasis-open.org
> > repository and update the links in its front matter to reflect this,
we
> > also
> > need to update the reference to this document on line 204 of XRI
> Resolution
> > 2.0 Committee Draft 03.
> >
> > Please call or email me if you have any questions about this. We look
> > forward very much to conducting the second Public Review of XRI
> Resolution
> > 2.0.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org
> > [mailto:workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:01 PM
> > To: drummond.reed@cordance.net
> > Subject: Groups - oasis - Ballot "XRI Resolution Committee Draft
03" has
> > closed
> >
> > OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC member,
> >
> > A ballot presented to OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC
has
> > closed.
> > The text of this closed ballot is as follows:
> > ---
> > "XRI Resolution Committee Draft 03"
> > Does the committee approve the XRI Resolution 2.0 Committee Draft 02
> > Revision 04 specification (URI below) as a Committee Draft? If yes,
does
> > the
> > TC also agree to submit the specification for Public Review?
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/27432/xri-resolution-
> > V2.0-
> > cd-02-rv-04.pdf
> >
> > This ballot requires a Full Majority Vote to Pass.
> >
> > - Yes
> > - No
> > - Abstain
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Quick Summary of Voting Results:
> > - Yes received 18 Votes
> > - No received 0 Votes
> > - Abstain received 0 Votes
> >
> > 18 of 21 eligible voters cast their vote before the deadline.
> >
> > Voting results for all closed ballots are available on the xri eVote
> > Archive
> > at:
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/ballot_archive.php
> >
> > Thank you,
> > OASIS Open Administration
--
Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com
\ http://blog.wachob.com
--
Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com
|