You're right. I should have held off until I got more feedback. I
apologize for jumping the gun and publishing without proper review. I'm
a bit unclear on what the exact rules should be before we upload new
documents and whether or not those rules should be the same for WDs and
CDs.
- g
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:05 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz;
> Subject: Improvements to our editorial workflow
>
> Retitling...
>
> I've already filed an issue to fix these and the other
> editorial issues that came up in the CD.
>
> I'm raising this to point out that we need to adopt some of
> the proposals that have been made to improve the checks we
> need to give each other before important drafts like a CD are
> published to the TC.
>
> The number one improvement I would suggest is that we not
> publish a CD before someone, not the last one to work on the
> doc, takes a pass over it.
> It's better to wait another week to get the CD to the TC so
> that we can make sure it is of high quality than let these
> types of errors through.
>
> You took on the work to prepare the CDs and asked all of us
> to provide you feedback on them (which is a lot less work
> than what you took on).
> To the best of my knowledge none of us was conscientious
> enough to get back to you before the docs were posted. While
> I appreciate wanting to get the CDs out before the following
> call I think their accuracy should take precedence.
>
> We can see this as a test run since there wasn't a call for
> public review. If I'm not mistaken there will be for the next
> one. We need to make sure we improve our process to catch
> issues like this before that CD gets released.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: Marc Goodner;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
>
> Let's fix 'em in wd06 and move on.
>
> - g
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:39 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> >
> > Not a single one of these made it into the CD (other than
> the status
> > stuff that changed anyway). I don't think these should have
> required
> > an issue to get addressed in the CD. Perhaps the multiple
> definition
> > one, but the other ones are clear editorial mistakes. A
> whole lot more
> > were introduced between this draft and the CD.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 3:18 PM
> > To: Anish Karmarkar
> > Cc:
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> >
> > And another thing, receive is defined twice (and differently each
> > time) at lines 237 and 246.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:58 PM
> > To: Anish Karmarkar
> > Cc:
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> >
> > Sorry, 4 below is more wrong than I thought. After line 3
> and before
> > line 4 Document Identifier exists on the first page as a title and
> > with no line number. That should be after a page break and line 4
> > should be
> > wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05 with 05 probably being whatever the
> next revision
> > number is. Also I guess this means line 60 should say WD right?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 12:42 PM
> > To: Anish Karmarkar
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [ws-rx-editors] RE: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> >
> > Here are some other editorial issues I've found by line number.
> >
> > 4 Still identified as ED draft
> > 60 Shouldn't that be CD?
> > 184 extra space between accurately and determine
> > 187 The capitalized incorrectly, should be the
> > 633 Why does this line start with OPTIONAL? Any other optional
> > elements/attributes are called out in the immediate line after they
> > are declared. Furthermore I'm not sure this is optional, it is an
> > extensibility point and as such I don't think anyone is supposed to
> > barf if it is used. Earlier in the spec it clearly says unknown
> > extensions should be ignored.
> > 1141, 1155, 1159, 1160 undefined namespace prefix of ws is used,
> > should be xs
> >
> > Not sure if I'll get to the policy doc today or not, I'll try.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:22 PM
> > To: wsrx
> > Subject: [ws-rx] Editorial issues with WD 05
> >
> > All,
> >
> > The editors would like to point out three ed issues against
> WSRM WD-05
> > [1]:
> >
> > 1) The pages numbers in the 'Table of Contents' aren't correct. OO
> > requires that all the indexes be regenerated once changes are
> > accepted, before generating the PDF. That was not done before
> > generating the PDF at [1].
> >
> > 2) There was a editorial regression. Line 678 in [1] says:
> > "to the element.Faults"
> > This really should be:
> > "to the element." and "Faults" should be on a new line and
> formated as
> > a
> >
> > separate section (section 4). Because of this regression,
> subsections
> > that were previously subsections of section 4 are now
> subsections of 3
> > instead.
> >
> > 3) Robin Cover pointed out an editorial bug on line 124.
> > Given that our NS ends with a trailing '/'
> > (http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrm/200510/),
> > line 124 should be:
> > "reliable messaging namespace URI concatenated with the"
> > instead of:
> > "reliable messaging namespace URI concatenated with the "/"
> > character and the"
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> > p/14785/ws
> > rm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
> >
>
