I am not sure if the editors get 2 full days. This is what
we agreed on the last call:
TC members need to get
all editorial comments by Oct 18, and the kavi ballots
will be initiated on the morning of Oct 20.
If you believe that you need 2 full days (which seems
reasonable to me), we could request the following to the TC - Submit comments by
Noon Pacifc of Oct 18 and open the ballot at Noon Pacific on Oct
20.
I also agree that it will be helpful for the TC if the
editors proactively posted the anomalies, errors that they are aware
of.
Thanks,
Sanjay
From: Yalcinalp, Umit
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 12:55
PM
To: Doug Davis;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
Issue with the posted 05 document
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
>
>
