RE: [ws-rx-editors] Editorial changes (I swear!)

The diff problem is one of the 
things we are hoping is fixed in OO 2.0. I suppose I could actually check the 
release notes . . . .

 

- g

  

  
  From: Doug Davis [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:07 PM
To: 
  
Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] 
  Editorial changes (I swear!)

  

Steve, 
  I manually added your changes to WD08 I just 
  checked in.  In the security section it appears you added spaces after 
  periods but OO's diff flagged the entire paragraph as being changed (see why I 
  don't trust it  :-).   Please verify that I didn't mess up. 
  
I didn't do anything with the issues you 
  mentioned in the text of your note below - except I did add RMD to the 
  glossary since I had an AI for that. 
-Doug 

  
    
    

      "Winkler, Steve" 
        <> 
        
12/14/2005 01:06 AM 

      
        
          
          

            
              
To

            <> 
          

            
              
cc

            
          

            
              
Subject

            [ws-rx-editors] 
              Editorial changes (I swear!)

        
          
          

            
            

  
Hi Editors, 
  
I went over the core spec in detail this weekend 
  and found several changes that I would assert are purely editorial.  I 
  produced a cleaned up version, but would like to verify that you all agree 
  that these changes are editorial before I submit them.  It will also be 
  helpful for me to have you review the proposed changes as this is my first 
  attempt at using OO for editorial purposes and I want to make sure it looks 
  right before I upload it.  Attached is a red line diff between the new 
  version of the spec.   
  
Additionally, I noticed a few more substantial 
  editorial issues that I think we'll either need to discuss or raise to the TC. 
   I'll bring these up in a separate mail, but for example: 
  
- RM Destination is defined in the glossary, but RM 
  Source is not. 
- 
  Element definitions alternate between using RFC 2119 and not. E.g  "This 
  REQUIRED element blah blah blah" followed by "This element, if present, blah 
  blah blah" instead of "This OPTIONAL element blah blah blah" 
  
- "piggy backing" is mentioned several times, but 
  defined no where.   
  
Etc. etc. 
  
Cheers,
Steve 
  
<<wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07-steve-diff.pdf>> 
  [attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-07-steve-diff.pdf" deleted by Doug 
  Davis/Raleigh/IBM]