Hi Simon,
Simon Holdsworth wrote:
Folks,
There were some concerns regarding
spec
revisions and naming that was used for the bindings specs when working
on the RFC2119 resolution. I understand that versions of the specs
that contain proposed resolutions should not be named -cd01-revN.doc,
but
rather that a separately named document should be used to work on the
resolution,
which is then added to a revision of the spec document once resolved.
The problem that we now have is that
we have gone through multiple revisions as we sorted out the various
specs,
with changes accepted in between, so that the latest revisions of the
JCA
and WS specs, at least, don't have all changes since the last CD marked
with revision bars.
I'd like to get some feedback from
the
TC on how we proceed from here.
Is the expectation that between CD
versions,
the changes in the -revN documents mount up, and only get accepted when
we move to the next CD, or is it OK to accept changes from revN to
revN+1
? ("accept changes" in the Microsoft word sense, rather than
any TC sense).
If it is the latter, then we are OK
to carry on from where we are.
If the former, then we have to do
one
of the following:
A) fix up the latest spec documents
so that they show all changes since cd01.
Seems to me that the only "safe" way to handle CD02 is to get the
latest round of edits, accept all changes, and then ask Word (or, in my
case, OpenOffice) to do a comparison with the CD01 official version.
Otherwise, we might miss changes that slipped in via an accidental edit
without revision tracking. Assuming MS Word or OpenOffice can do a
decent job of showing those differences, isn't that the path to go down
anyway? If either of those cannot do a decent difference, then we
might need to dig deeper.... So I would start by simply seeing how MS
Word does with its comparison.
B) accept the latest spec
documents
as CD02, and use that as the base for applying further revisions.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when we're voting for CD02, we're
voting on the notion that all issues part of that CD revision have been
applied as per the understanding of the TC. Of course we'll want to
review the document in its entirety for language, but if the ever so
sneaky editors changed the meaning of a previously resolved issue, I
presume it would only take a simple majority vote to get the change
reverted.
C) understand that when
we do get to
CD02, some of the changes made for RFC2119 statements will not be
marked
with revision bars.
Like I indicate above, my first step will be to do a full comparison
with the original CD01, not any of the intervening revisions....
Hopefully that will work well.
Presumably editors could save us all some work by preparing a PDF that
accomplishes the same thing.
-Eric.
Regards, Simon
Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC
Chair
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet -
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
