MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Multiple variants of ebXML 2.0 "OASIS Standard" document
Ian, perhaps you can provide some of the history here. For the TC, this
is a general question about the base for all issues on our list.
I have just noticed that we have at least 3 versions of our 2.0c
specification. They are, in order:
a. What seems like the earliest file, available inside a Zip file[1] and
directly[2] (both within our Kavi documents directory). This document
has an internal document date (identified on the title page) of 21
February 2002 and was last edited on that date. The corresponding Word
document is available within the Zip file[1] and but not directly (that
I can find).
b. An edit to reflect completion of the OASIS standardisation process or
OASIS template requirements (which?), with an updated internal document
date (1 April 2002) that was last edited on 15 March 2002. Apart from
the updated dates (including the page headers), this version includes an
new "Intellectual Property Rights Statement" section and updated
Disclaimer and Copyright Statement on the final page. The table of
contents lists that new section, making line numbers one higher for the
bulk of the document (everything after that table). This is available
on our site[3] (in the Kavi directory) and the ebXML.org site[4]. The
Word source [5,6] is also available.
c. An edit that seems to start from the first document above (and not
the second). This document has an internal document date of 21 February
2002 and was last edited on 19 August 2002. Links in the PDF are
bordered (making the text hard to read) and include a number of "Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid." annotations. I see no differences
from the first document except these invalid hyperlinks though that
additional text adds 2 lines to every line number after the "Status of
this Document" section (and one more after the [XMLDSIG] bibliographic
entry near the end). Page numbers are also one higher for most of the
specification. The footers are slightly different on a few pages,
including the title page. I have no idea about the purpose of this
document.
I am in the midst of updating the issues list to point to problem or
solution locations within the PDF version of our specification.
Unfortunately, the differences above result in different line numbers
depending upon the document version chosen. I propose to use document
(a) and thereby provide a consistent base for everything in the issues
list. Does someone strongly prefer I use (b)?
Please, no comments about using line numbers other than from the PDF
files. Any other choice means we all see different line numbers due to
different editor versions, printers and printer drivers.
thanx,
doug
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/1167/ebMS-2.0c.zip
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/269/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.pdf
[4] http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebMS2.pdf
[5] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0.doc
[6]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/271/ebMS_v2_0.doc
[7]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/documents/ebMS_v2_0rev_c.pdf
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]