RE: WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review

yes prasad, that's what I was wondering.
i can make the changes to the XML and generate the HTML.

maryann



Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com> 
10/13/2006 12:31 PM

To
Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject
RE: WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review






Hi Maryann,
 
To make the editorial changes you mentioned below, is just changing the 
XML. I usually generate the HTML to visually review my change (but that is 
optional). This is like any other AI we do.
 
I am not sure if you were thinking about the generation of diffs etc. We 
will do them after all the comments are in and we made all the associated 
changes. 
 
Regards,
Prasad
 

From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:09 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review
 

I can if someone lays out the steps needed. 

It seems this is not as simple as a single change to the XML. 
So, if you or Felix could articulate the steps, or point me to a document 
that contains them, 
then I can execute the steps. 

Maryann 


Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com> 
10/13/2006 10:17 AM 


To
Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org 
Subject
RE: WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review
 


 
 




Hi Maryann, 
  
I agree with your comments. Can I request you to make the changes? 
  
Thanks, 
  
Prasad 
  
 


From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:21 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review 
  

Prasad, 
Thanks for all your hard work on this. 
I've given both a quick pass and will print out and review over the 
weekend with a more detailed reading, 
but here are two minor changes to the summary text to consider.... 
I think the phrased is "fleshed-out" but I would recommend replacing this 
with "added text to". 
And for the security considerations section, why not just leave out the 
material in "()"...I don't think it adds anything. 

I think simple, direct statements are the way to go for a summary. 

Maryann 

Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 
10/12/2006 04:29 PM 
 


To
dorchard@bea.com, public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org 
cc
 
Subject
WS-Policy 1.5 Specs Editors Drafts for Sanity Check Review

 
 


 
 





Folks, 
 
We have all the work on the Attachment specification completed. 
 
Dave: I did the Appendix D (Changes since last WD) also, so that we can 
start internal review of this document, 
while we await the last AI on the framework doc to be completed. 
 
1. The Editors Draft of the Attachment document is here: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.html 

2. The Corresponding diffs from last WD file is here: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment-diff20060927.html 

 
If you like, please also review the mostly complete Framework document (we 
have just one AI pending), so that we can get head start on this document 
also: 
 
3. The Editors Draft of the Framework document is here: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html 

4. The Corresponding diffs from last WD is here: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework-diff20060927.html 

 
Please review for sanity check to see if we are ready to send this out to 
the WG. Just sanity check to spot obvious blunders: 
As an editor please feel free to make any updates you see needed (and let 
the team know). 
 
If there are no major issues, I hope we can send these to the WG COB 
Monday? 
 
Thanks. 
 
Prasad