Re: Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress to Proposed Recommendation for SOAP-JMS

OK, thanks Eric  (I must read the whole of Yves' note next time!)

I've updated the spec here:
http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#status  so that the
paragraph now reads:

The authors of this document consider it to be stable, and invite reviewers
and implementors to send comments to the public-soap-jms@w3.org mailing
list (public archive). Advisory Committee representatives are invited to
send formal review comments to the same mailing list before the deadline of
23 December 2011.

Regards
Mark



From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	Mark Phillips/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:	SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Date:	03/11/2011 09:52
Subject:	Re: Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress to Proposed
            Recommendation for SOAP-JMS



Hi Mark,

Thanks for the further work on this!

One comment below....

On 11/2/11 3:47 PM, Mark Phillips wrote:
> Yes, I'd be happy to update the document - and I'll go with 23rd December
-
> but in looking at the source I notice another unresolved question :
>
> <a href="QUESTION: what is the link to our WSB review form?">
>
> Rather than linking to a specific form I propose we use the same wording
> that the SVG spec used for their Proposed Recommendation on 09 June 2011
> [1].
>
> Specifically  I propose we replace the text :
>
>     Advisory Committee representatives may send their review comments
using
>     the WBS review form before the deadline of (QUESTION: what is the end
of
>     this review period?).
>
> with the text :
>
>     W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send formal review
>     comments on this Proposed Recommendation to the W3C Team until 23
>     December 2011.   Members of the W3C Advisory Committee will find the
>     appropriate review form for this document by consulting their list of
>     current WBS questionnaires.
>
> Any objections / comments?

In the email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Oct/0000.html

Yves suggested that we simply request feedback to our mailing list.

-Eric.

>
> Regards
> Mark
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-SVG11-20110609/
>
>
>
>
> From:		 Eric Johnson<eric@tibco.com>
> To:		 Mark Phillips/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> Cc:		 SOAP-JMS<public-soap-jms@w3.org>
> Date:		 02/11/2011 13:55
> Subject:		 Re: Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress to
Proposed
>              Recommendation for SOAP-JMS
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I might suggest one additional week, at least, because the US has the
> Thanksgiving holiday in the middle of that time frame.
>
> Care to update the document?
>
> -Eric.
>
> On 11/2/11 2:42 PM, Mark Phillips wrote:
>> Thanks Eric, I have reviewed this, and the disposition of comments and
> both
>> look good.
>>
>> One remaining item that I think we need to resolve is the paragraph in
> the
>> SOTD [1] which begins "The authors of this document consider it to be
>> stable".  The paragraph ends with the question "(QUESTION: what is the
> end
>> of this review period?)."
>>
>> In his note on 3rd Oct [2] Yves suggested at least 4 weeks for this
> review
>> period - so does December 16th seem reasonable if we publish on November
>> 15th.
>>
>> Regards
>> Mark
>>
>> [1]   http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#status
>> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Oct/0000.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:		 		  Eric Johnson<eric@tibco.com>
>> To:		 		  SOAP-JMS<public-soap-jms@w3.org>
>> Date:		 		  01/11/2011 14:24
>> Subject:		 		  Action-258: (Draft #2) Request to progress
to Proposed
>>               Recommendation  for SOAP-JMS
>>
>>
>>
>> SOAP-JMS WG - the following is my 2nd draft of the request to progress
>> to PR, integrating feedback from Yves.
>>
>> Specifically, Yves noted that it would be appropriate to link to:
>>     * a report of issues raised during our Last Call
>>     * declarations of conformance by implementations.
>>
>> So I've done so.
>>
>> Further comments welcome!
>>
>> -Eric
>> ======================================================================
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The SOAP-JMS Working Group requests transition to Proposed
>> Recommendation for the SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0
> specification.
>> Document title
>> --------------
>> SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0
>>
>> URLs
>> ----
>> Draft: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html
>> Final: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-soapjms-20111108/
>>
>> Abstract
>> --------
>> The abstract can be found at:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#abstract
>>
>> Status
>> ------
>> The status of the document can be found at:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#status
>>
>> Estimated publication date:
>> ---------------------------
>> November 15, 2011
>>
>> Records
>> -------
>> Decision to request the transition:
>> (TBD)
>>
>> Significant Changes Since Previous Publication
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>     * clarified text around the use of BytesMessage and TextMessage
>>     * added support for "contentEncoding"
>>     * improvements to non-normative text
>>     * miscellaneous editorial changes
>>
>> For a complete report, see:
>> URL-TBD
>>
>> Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> The background section of the document establishes what the document
>> aims to define, and links to those portions of the specification:
>>
>>
>
http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#introduction-background

>
>>
>> Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met
>> ----------------------------------------
>> This specification has no normative dependency issues.
>>
>> Evidence for Wide Review
>> ------------------------
>> There exist at least four implementations, including at least one open
>> source implementation. Comments arrived on our public mailing list from
>> parties previously unknown to members of the WG.
>>
>> Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> All issues raised on the public mailing list resulted in issues entered
>> in our tracker, and all issues in the issue tracker have been addressed
>> to the satisfaction of the person who raised the issue.
>>
>> Specifically, you can see our disposition of comments since our last
>> last public release:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/disposition-of-comments-2011-PR.html
>>
>> Implementation Information
>> --------------------------
>> Three implementations have publicly stated that they pass the test suite
>> defined by the WG.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Aug/0002.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Oct/0008.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Apr/0003.html
>>
>> ... and from the Apache CXF project, over a sequence of emails ...
>>
>
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C201104051045.04251.dkulp%40apache.org%3E

>
>>
>
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C4DACB9C1.4080008%40tibco.com%3E

>
>>
>
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C201104191250.00242.dkulp%40apache.org%3E

>
>>
>> Objections
>> ----------
>> None raised
>>
>> Patent disclosures
>> ------------------
>> None
>>
>>
>> Eric Johnson,
>> Chair, SOAP-JMS working group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 18:49:38 UTC