[BYTEIO-WG] Document process / FLE's slate on the Experience document

[Andre Merzky]

Thanks for the clarification - yep, I'll comment on GFD.1
:-)

Cheers, Andre.


Quoting [Michel Drescher] (Oct 15 2007):
> To: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> 
> Hi Andre,
> 
> On 15 Oct 2007, at 16:30, Andre Merzky wrote:
> 
> >Hi Michel,
> >
> >>Secondly, and that's what this mail is mainly all about, I had a chat
> >>with Greg Newby about the documents process regarding ByteIO.
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>2) The Experience document we are writing at the moment will go
> >>through its own PC period as normal. How ever, this document will
> >>explicitly mention and document that as a result of the interop
> >>tests, we had to change the XML rendering for the Specification,
> >>hence obsoleting the relevant appendices of the Functional Spec and
> >>the WSRF rendering, where appropriate, The document then will also
> >>explicitly mention that the online version of the XML and WSDL will
> >>reflect the latest version of the XML and WSDL.
> >>
> >>2.1) We therefore need to add a chapter to the Experience document
> >>that describes the changes to the XML and WSDL as outlined above.
> >>THat way, we update the spec without having to go through the fairly
> >>heavyweight process of a new set of requirements documents.
> >
> >Well, that is interesting.  But how is a consumer of the
> >ByteIO spec to find out that the original spec document is
> >actually outdated, and that the new updated spec is found in
> >the appendix of the Experience document?
> 
> Actually, the original spec is not the final spec. What we have is a  
> *proposed* recommendation, though expected to be pretty stable. But  
> there's got to be a process for cases like ours which I think is not  
> or will not be so uncommon.
> 
> The detailed process is actually not really fixed, and if you have  
> time please comment on that in the current PC for GFD.1.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michel
> 
> 





-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.