Mary,
While I appreciate your attempt
to let us off the hook on this, some of the members of the WS-RX TC have been
very vocal about the quaility of the HTML versions. Pending any changes to their
stance on the matter, it seems we will just have to do the extra
work.
- gp
From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Gilbert
Pilz; 'Doug Davis';
Subject: RE:
[ws-rx-editors] latest docs
Hi Gilbert,
This was certainly never the intent of the TC
Process. Some TCs maintain their specs in XHTML and don't use a
word-processing app at all, but if the TC prefers to use OpenOffice or some
other ODF app to author/edit then it doesn't need to be overly concerned with
the HTML output.
Regards,
Mary
From: Gilbert Pilz
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
1:30 PM
To: Doug Davis;
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-editors]
latest docs
As far as I know, it is.
Editing is going to be more painful from this point on because we need to
maintain parallel OpenDoc and HTML versions of the spec. :-( This sucks, but
it was the only way to produce a readable HTML version.
-
gp
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:37 AM
To:
Subject: [ws-rx-editors]
latest docs
was thinking about applying
some of the resolved PR issues to the spec but before I did I wanted to
make sure I extracted the right/latest versions. Am I correct in
assuming that the stuff in the CD4 folder is the latest?
-Doug
