RE: Publication Request: First Public Working Draft of C14N 1.1and two WG Notes

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 September 12 10:06
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: Jean-Guilhem Rouel; webreq; Liam Quin; Philippe Le 
> Hegaret; Henry S. Thompson; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Publication Request: First Public Working Draft 
> of C14N 1.1and two WG Notes
> 
> On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:42 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > And how are people supposed to know that
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-20060915
> > isn't a draft of the C14N Recommendation?
> 
> First public WD from pubrules [1], bullet 10:
> 
> "It MUST include this text related to patent policy requirements (with
> suitable links inserted; see guidelines for linking to disclosure
> pages): 
>         This document was produced by a group operating under the 5
>         February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. The group does not 
> expect this
>         document to become a W3C Recommendation. ...
>         
>         
> That's the bit that provides the expectation about the future 
> end state.

Too subtle by half.  Having "NOTE" in the URL makes
more sense to me.

But consider that a comment on the process document
from an AC rep [you're always asking me for feedback,
but I only find I have feedback when I try to publish
something and it's always problematic], not a comment 
from the chair of the XML Core WG trying to get some 
documents published, in which case I don't care what
you decide as long as Jean-Gui publishes them.

> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2006&uimode=filter&fil
> ter=Filter
> +pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr&patpol=w3c&no
> rmative=yes&rectrack=no&prevrec=none#docreqs
> 
> > And then what should the "Latest version"
> > URLs in these drafts be?
> 
> Presumably /TR/C14N

I would think the latest version of this document that is
going to be a NOTE would have NOTE in the URL.  Or were
you expecting the Lastest Version URL to change when we
finally publish it as a NOTE--having a Latest Version URL
that changes seems fairly ironic to me.

> 
> I have not followed this request closely and am in meetings; 
> let me know
> if I've answered all the questions or if I need to read more in detail
> about this request tonight.

I understand you're trying to multi-task--sorry about that.

The good news is that we have scheduled publication for 
Friday, so we have a little time.

I don't think "Presumably /TR/C14N" is a good enough answer
for Jean-Gui; it certainly isn't one that I'd know how to
handle.

Before we can publish what's currently at
 http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
and
 http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html
we need to know what the front matter should be.  I have
only become more confused since this discussion started,
so I think you'll have to take the time to look at these
two documents and just tell us what they should say so
that they can be published.

paul


> 
>  _ Ian
> 
> > paul
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 September 12 09:32
> > > To: Jean-Guilhem Rouel
> > > Cc: Grosso, Paul; webreq; Liam Quin; Philippe Le Hegaret; 
> > > Henry S. Thompson; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Publication Request: First Public Working Draft 
> > > of C14N 1.1 and two WG Notes
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > >  _ Ian
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 10:29 -0400, Jean-Guilhem Rouel wrote:
> > > > Ian B. Jacobs a écrit :
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please publish these as "Working Drafts" until you are 
> > > all done, at
> > > > > which point publish them as Working Group Notes. 
> Please state your
> > > > > expectations in the status section: that the WG expects 
> > > to publish this
> > > > > as a Note at some point.
> > > > 
> > > > So the URLs should be
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-C14N-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-DSIG2006-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > rather than
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSIG2006-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > Am I right?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jean-Gui
> > > > 
> > > > > "Working Draft" does not (for historical reasons) imply 
> > > "going to Rec."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > > 
> > > > >  _ Ian
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 17:07 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
> > > > >>  
> > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>> From: Jean-Guilhem Rouel [mailto:jean-gui@w3.org] 
> > > > >>> Sent: Monday, 2006 September 11 15:49
> > > > >>> To: Grosso, Paul
> > > > >>> Cc: webreq; Liam Quin; Philippe Le Hegaret; Henry S. 
> > > > >>> Thompson; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; Ian B. Jacobs
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: Publication Request: First Public 
> Working Draft 
> > > > >>> of C14N 1.1 and two WG Notes
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi Paul,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It's OK for me, but I CC Ian to have his opinion.
> > > > >>> BTW, I don't really understand the status of the two 
> > > other documents.
> > > > >>> You say that they are notes (so do the URIs), but 
> the documents
> > > > >>> themselves are written as Working Draft. This is not 
> > > normal and that's
> > > > >>> why the errors are raised. Maybe Ian can confirm 
> that (I can 
> > > > >>> be wrong),
> > > > >>> but I think this is a problem and thus has to be changed.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> I await Ian's comments.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> These documents are WG Notes (not Rec-track), but they
> > > > >> aren't final yet.  So they are working drafts of WG Notes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I await to hear how we're supposed to handle these.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> Jean-Gui
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> > > > >>>> Hi Jean-Gui,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The XML Core WG would like to publish just that diff
> > > > >>>> document for the first public working draft.  It's
> > > > >>>> important that reviewers can see just what we are
> > > > >>>> proposing to change.  At this point, we do not have
> > > > >>>> a more "real" document.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> We will, of course, have a "real" document for
> > > > >>>> subsequent drafts, but for now this is what we
> > > > >>>> hope to publish this week.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I hope this is okay with you.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> thanks,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> paul 
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>> From: Jean-Guilhem Rouel [mailto:jean-gui@w3.org] 
> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, 2006 September 11 10:55
> > > > >>>>> To: Grosso, Paul
> > > > >>>>> Cc: webreq; Liam Quin; Philippe Le Hegaret; Henry S. 
> > > > >>>>> Thompson; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Publication Request: First Public 
> Working Draft 
> > > > >>>>> of C14N 1.1 and two WG Notes
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hello Paul,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915.htm
> > > > >>>>> l is only
> > > > >>>>> a diff document. Can you provide the real document?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thank you,
> > > > >>>>> Jean-Gui
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> > > > >>>>>> The XML Core WG requests publication of the following 
> > > > >>>>>> three documents:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
> > > > >>>>>>   Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
> > > > >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
> > > > >>>>>>   Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML 
> Environment
> > > > >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/dsig2006-note.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of the Recommendation track:
> > > > >>>>>>   Canonical XML 1.1
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/09/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The above URLs are the publication-ready versions as of 
> > > > >>>>>> 2006 September 8, but dated September 15th in 
> anticipation
> > > > >>>>>> of publication at that time.  
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> They are written to be published by being copied 
> as-is into 
> > > > >>>>>> the following locations:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
> > > > >>>>>>   Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)
> > > > >>>>>> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of an XML Core WG Note:
> > > > >>>>>>   Using XML Digital Signatures in the 2006 XML 
> Environment
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-DSIG2006-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> * First WD of the Recommendation track:
> > > > >>>>>>   Canonical XML 1.1
> > > > >>>>>> 
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-c14n11-20060915/Overview.html
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The Director approved publication in an email sent
> > > > >>>>>> Thu 2006-09-07 17:20 EDT cc-ing webreq (but not
> > > > >>>>>> archived in any archive to which I have permission).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The two Notes pass pubrules except for errors because
> > > > >>>>>> pubrules thinks they are WDs of Rec-track documents
> > > > >>>>>> instead of WDs of Notes.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The WD passes pubrules.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
> > > -- 
> > > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > > Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
> > > 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 15:17:12 UTC