Sanjay
I thought I had said on the call all comments by 9am Pacific Oct 18th,
and then the final version to be available for the ballot to start 9am
Pacific Oct 20th.
I agree thoroughly that it would be good if we could have edits in place
before then, so if no-one finds any more anomalies then the doc need not
change from 18th->20th.
Paul
Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Vice President of Technology
WSO2, "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
Yahoo IM: paulfremantle
Cell/Mobile: +44 (0) 7740 199 729
