As long as we get at least two days to incorporate changes
to drafts before posting it to the tc, it should be ok.
As far as Anish's concern is concerned, I agree that we
should not update the docs. I am wondering however whether we should inform the
tc about such anomalies so that we don't hear from multiple folks about the same
problem in order to indicate that we are aware of the issue and it will be
fixed.
--umit
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, Oct 08, 2005 3:19 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors]
Issue with the posted 05 document
this raises the question of how to
handle any fixes for the draft CDs. Resetting the 2-week clock each time
isn't good. So I suggest that at the end of the 2 weeks we post another
diff'd version - where the original version is the draft CD w/all changes
accepted - and the diff'd version shows just the changes we made since the
posting of the draft CDs. In there we can include the fix to the section
4 formatting.
-Doug
Anish Karmarkar
<>
10/07/2005 08:46 PM
To
"Yalcinalp, Umit"
<>
cc
Subject
Re: [ws-rx-editors]
Issue with the posted 05 document
Umit,
Thanks for pointing this out. You're right, we need to
do 'Tools->Update
All' before generating the PDFs. I looked at the two
docs (more pairs of
eyes are most welcome) -- sxw and pdf versions -- and
the only problem
that I saw (wrt updating of indexes) was with the 'Table
of Contents'.
Fortunately, there is no problem with the line numbers. So
this in
itself would not require us to generate another draft.
But
I noticed another problem. In the #2 version at [1] updated by Gil,
the
formating for 'Fault', section 4, was removed. As a result the old
section
4 was included as subsections of 3. This got carried forward in
subsequent
drafts (if you recall I had pointed this out earlier on this
ML
[2]).
Not sure if this requires us to generate another draft that is
uploaded
to the main TC page. Since the 2 week clock started yesterday,
changing
the daft now may make some people unhappy. If folks look at the
diff-ed
version though it is much clearer as to what happened.
I'm
inclined not to do any updates to the main page right now and
include this
as a change when we approve the CD at the end of the two
week's
period.
Thoughts?
-Anish
--
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/download.php/14670/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.sxw
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/email/archives/200509/msg00056.html
Yalcinalp,
Umit wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I ran into this problem today with
Policy spec and realized that the
> posted version for WSRM spec has a
similar issue (I corrected mine
> before posting it though :-))
>
> When you generate pdfs (no change bars) either after accepting
> changes/turning of change bars, you must regenerate the indexes from
> Tools. Otherwise, the index does not align with the spec sections and
> pages.
>
> Just another day in paradise,
>
> --umit
>
>
