RE: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330

John,

 

Not quite - I was suggesting we only add the source to the 230 and 330.

 

All the other orange items I was arguing are out of scope and local implementers will handle those items however makes sense for their systems and solutions, external to the EML.

 

I will look into the 130 next, along with the new 150 we were wanting for the VIP folks.

 

Thanks, DW 

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330
From: "John Borras" <>
Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 6:04 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <>
Cc: "eml " <>

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> 

David

 

Just to be clear what you are proposing:

 

On the 120-330 Compare sheet all the entries in orange would be added to the 330 and then we delete the 120?

 

We keep the 230 but add a Source item?

 

What happens to the 130?

 

 

John

 

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:] 
Sent: 31 March 2009 20:51
To: eml 
Subject: [election-services] Much better news on 120 v 230 / 330

 

Team,

 

OK - went back and reviewed everything and significantly improved the dictionary compare XSLT processing.

 

Adding in the 230 definately completes the other pieces of the puzzle.

 

Attached Excel spreadsheet.

 

I believe this shows we are very close - most items do indeed match as Paul thought.  

 

Reviewing the 120 to combined worksheet - following suggestions:

 

- 178 - we add a Source node to 230 and 330 - that tracks original source of content.

 

I am seeing that the remaining items in the 120 relate to physical transfer of content - and hence are more of a "result report" that a batch process would produce - rather than something we should perscribe into the standard.  Typically this would all be external to the EML - a results report - that a SQL or similar process e.g a DIFF) would produce.

 

Thoughts everyone?

 

Thanks, DW