Re: [ubl-comment] Given that they are part of 2.2 (by reason of backward compatibility)

Hi David, 

I just caught up with your message to the TC and thought I would offer some information on how we manage the publication of approved TC work products like UBL 2.2. 

OASIS publishes all approved TC work products, beginning with Committee Specification Drafts and onwards through OASIS Standards, on the server docs.oasis-open.org. We publish each version in its own distinct tree. We don't try to package up master zip files across an entire collection of releases because we've never seen a need since that could quickly lead to very large files on our system that are of little use to people. Our approach is always to point to earlier or superseded versions under the heading 'Related work' on the specifications cover page. For example, on the cover page for UBL 2.2, it refers to 2.1 as having been superseded and from the cover page of 2.1, it points to 2.0. 

Of course, we do publish whatever the TC wants us to publish within its version directory so if the package of material approved by the TC included historical content from earlier releases, we would generally go ahead and publish as prepared and approved by the TC. 

Your situation is one that we've not heard about before and I can see why, if you are on a metered line, data volume and connects would be something you would want to minimize. I would be happy to prepare a ZIP file for you including everything you would need. Just let me know and I'm happy to provide it. 

I hope this answers your questions. 

Best regards, 

/chet 

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:14 AM, David Goodenough <> wrote:

I suspect you will get fed up with me eventually, but until you tell me

to go away I will keep going.  Thank you for responses, they are very

welcome.

 

I am at the end of a very slow ADSL line, which is usage measured during

the day.  So I tend to download things in lumps and review them later.

Hence my use of the ZIP file.

 

I quite understand that having one reference copy on the net makes a

whole bunch of sense, which is why I am only suggesting some structure

like a 2.0 and 2.1 directory in the ZIP file rather than duplication

of the primary source.  I realize that this represents additional packaging

work, and that resources to achieve this packaging may be limited.  On 

the net the same could be achieved by links to the old GC files, rather

than copies.  It is just easier for the new user if everything is visible

in one place.  It took me a while to realize that there were more than

the few new/modified GC files for 2.2, and that the old ones were still

relevant.

 

David

 

----------------

Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration 
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393