Thanks Chet, that’s great – do you agree in any case, that purely formatting changes, if needed, do not constitute a revision that would require a new cycle
of review?
Cheers,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Chet Ensign
Sent: Monday, 12 December, 2011 12:47
To: Peter F Brown
Cc: TGF TC List
Subject: Re: [tgf] Comment on TGF-Primer Public Review Draft 02 - Document formatting and section numbering
Hi Peter -
I will look at the files and see if I can determine where the discrepancy came from.
/chet
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Peter F Brown <> wrote:
Hi,
The formatting and section numbering in the document published by OASIS is different from the document submitted for publication
Just a small reserve that should not lead to a further public review: spurious, incorrectly nested and ultimately misleading numbering has been added throughout the document.
Either the numbering system introduced (by whom?) should be consistent with the document’s intended structure; or should be removed. It was not in the deliverable approved by the TC.
Regards,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform
www.peterfbrown.com
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel:
+1.310.694.2278
Member of:
Follow me:
--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-378-3472
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open
