Ok, I will be assuming that
-- we do not make public changes to the tc doc repository in those 2
virtual days.
-- we will post the final documents to the tc doc repository just before
the ballot opens at October 20th incorporating all the suggested
changes.
Sounds right?
--umit
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Sanjay
> Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 2:27 PM
> To: Paul Fremantle
> Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; Doug Davis;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document
>
>
>
> OK. For some reason the minutes did not reflect the precise
> deadline for the comments. I will clarify that in an email to
> the TC as well as on the Thursday's call this week.
>
> On the second point, I was NOT suggesting that the editors
> change the publicly visible documents until Oct 18th 9AM
> Pacific. I was rather suggesting that the editors post to the
> mailing list comments about any anomalies, errors in the
> specs that they are aware of. This is simply to avoid
> flooding of similar feedback from everybody.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 14:21 PM
> > To: Patil, Sanjay
> > Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; Doug Davis;
> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] Issue with the posted 05 document
> >
> > 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/dow
> > nload.php/14670/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.sxw
> > > [2]
> > >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx-editors/ema
> il/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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
