Yes, you are correct.
However, there is a problem. The
document name stays the same. My understanding/assumption was that we
will have individual URLs and identifiers that reflect the version numbers. This
is easily solved with the cvs, but not here. It is one of the things that Paul
Cotton wanted to have, if i understood him correctly at the concall. In order to
use the replace mechanism, we need a stable name which does not make sense.
Wouldn't you agree?
Here is what I will do. I will post the original and second
version as two different urls.
--umit
From: Patil, Sanjay
Sent: Friday,
Sep 16, 2005 5:17 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Doug Davis;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
updated spec + i019 and i028
I though if you "Add a revision", it will both replace
the previous version (only one listing on the page) as well as keep
the previous copy in the system.
Thanks,
Sanjay
From: Yalcinalp, Umit
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, Sep 16, 2005 16:25
PM
To: Doug Davis;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
updated spec + i019 and i028
I suggest that we put the URL as TBD on to the docs we
post. We need to come up with a solution at the time when we publish a
committee draft I reckon.
I have another issue with the versions of the drafts.
Are we going to add separate docs for the draft versions or "replace" the
previous version? If the do the former it is easy to see the previous
docs/pdf but it takes hell of a space on the page. I deferred
publishing the original document and the new version (pending corrections
with issues closed) until I hear from the rest of you.
Thanks,
--umit
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, Sep 16, 2005 2:31 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
updated spec + i019 and i028
You're right. Attached
is a new version with the correct doc id. Don't know about the url
issue. For now I was just going to add it to the website and people
could get to it from the list of docs.
thanks,
-Doug
"Yalcinalp, Umit"
<>
09/16/2005 04:50 PM
To
Doug
Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<>
cc
Subject
RE:
[ws-rx-editors] updated spec + i019 and
i028
Doug,
I have not had the time to look at
your changes yet, however I noticed one thing right away that the document
identifier in the version you sent needs to be fixed.
I was going to
ask you guys your opinion about what the Location URL should be. This is
perhaps an issue which is not in the issue list, but needs to be resolved.
Currently, no one will be able to download the actual document using the
location identifier.
Thoughts?
--umit
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:52 PM
To:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors]
updated spec + i019 and i028
Here's a new version of the spec with the
changes from the Close() proposal. I used Anish's version that he
sent on 8/16 as the basis. This included all of his minor editorial
changes. Please give it a quick scan. I'm pretty sure the text
itself is ok but if someone can double check my schema and wsdl changes
I'd appreciate it. If everyone is ok with this I'd like to post it
to the web site soon (like maybe tomorrow night) to allow people the
maximum amount of time to use it for new issues.
Note - I renamed it to
ws-03
thanks
-Doug
