Since the naming convention is a draft, we may have to rename later no matter what we do. I agree with Tony that we should not rename now but wait for some finality on the naming convention. However, we do need to make sure that we are pointing at the latest documents and that the links work properly.
My original question was whether we should address the June 25 revision of the spec rather than the May 22 revision, which is the one we referenced in the earlier version of the Peer Review Announcement. The May 22 revision points at the June 25 revision as the latest, which could cause some confusion as to what should be reviewed. I like making the reference in the Announcement generic, as proposed by Tony in his latest Peer Review Announcement proposal.
The links in the proposed announcement have two issues, as I see it:
1. The link to the spec finds no document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/documents/xliff-specification.htm
This is caused by an inadvertent space at the end of the URL. The corrected URL is below.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/documents/xliff-specification.htm
2.- The link to the white paper requires a login:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xliff/download.php/3110/XLIFF-core-whitepaper_1.1-cs.pdf
Shouldn't this poiint to a public area of OASIS, if this is an at-large peer review?
(Tony and Yves, thanks for all your efforts on this. If there is anything I can do to help out, please let me know.)
regards,
john
