- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:30:09 +0900 (JST)
- To: "Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>
- Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
> Felix, > > > I am working on updating the "Substantive Changes since last working > draft" > in the framework document (and Dave O is doing the same for the attachment > document), as we discussed on the editors call today. We want to reflect > the > changes since the last published drafts that were approved at the Bellevue > F2F.> > > > The WS-Policy WG main Page at: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/ > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/> has links to the July version of the > published docs > > > public_draftsPublished W3C Working Drafts > > > *Web Services Policy > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20060731> 1.5 - Framework > *Web Services > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20060731> Policy 1.5 - > Attachment > > I hope I am not mistaken but, should these now be changed to point to the > Sept f2f approved versions? you are right, I missed to update that. I'm currently at home and can't upload the change, I will do that later today. > > I want to be sure that we are highlighting the changes from the correct > dated revision of the specs. > > In CVS I see that > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html? > rev=1.31 > <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html > ?rev=1.31> > > and > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.html > ?rev=1.41 > <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-attachment.htm > l?rev=1.41> > > had been tagged to be approved versions. > > > > We will move forward with capturing the significant changes since the > above > two revisions for fwk and attach docs respectively but, if that was not > the > correct assumption, please let us know. If those are the correct > revisions, > can you please update the main page to point to those versions so that, > when > we send the new Ed-drafts for approval, there would not be a confusion > with > respect to diffs generated etc. your assumption is correct and I will make the update later today. Felix
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 22:30:21 UTC