RE: C14N Notes pubdate [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 August 30]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose Kahan [mailto:jose.kahan@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, 2006 September 01 05:35
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: C14N Notes pubdate [was: Minutes for XML Core WG 
> telcon of 2006 August 30]
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I published an updated, almost 100%  pubrules valid version of
> the c14n note[1]. The only thing that is missing is having the
> final URIs and moving the note there, pending the Director's 
> approval. 
> I'll work with our webmaster this afternoon to secure the TR URIs
> this afternoon.

Thanks.

I plan to send email requesting first publication for all
three specs when they are ready, and that might not be
until sometime next week, so be sure you explain this
situation to the webmaster if you contact him now.

Also see my URL suggestions below.

> 
> Could you (or Henry) take a look at the status of the 
> document section?

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/c14n-note/c14n-note.html

The document at [1] makes it look like this is a finished
WG Note.  It doesn't make it clear that this is just a
first draft.  I'm not entirely sure how one does this 
for Notes, but I'd suggest making the first sentence of
the second paragraph of the status read something like:

 This is the first public draft of the Working Group Note 
 for "Known Issues with Canonical XML 1.0 (C14N/1.0)". 

(No need to repeat the pubdate date in the status--it's 
at the top of the document--but make it clear this is
a draft.)

---

In the third paragraph, I think you should mention the
XML Activity.  So I suggest you append to the end of
the first sentence of this paragraph:

  as part of the _XML Activity_.

where XML Activity is a link to http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity .

---

We do not allow public posting to public-xml-core-wg@w3.org.
Instead, we make up a different public list for each spec.

So someone (Henry?) needs to cause a new mailing list to
be created--I suggest public-xml-c14n@w3.org--and you should
refer to it in the status.  We'll plan to use this new
mailing list for both Notes and the C14N 1.1 spec itself.

---

When we go to publish, the "This version" URL should be
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-20060915
and the Latest version URL should be
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-C14N
and the file will actually be at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-C14N-20060915/Overview.html

> I tried to make it conform to the current standards. The 
> pubrules checker 
> said that the patent policy for xml-core is not the 2005 one, but the
> xml-core home page states otherwise.
> 

I tend to use Philippe as our IP expert, but my understanding
of the situation is that the XML Core WG is now under the PP,
but many of the specs we work on are still under CPP (and some
even pre-date that).

I also understand that a new version of a spec (e.g., a 1.1)
is basically a new spec as far as IP is concerned, and since
we are now under PP, the C14N 1.1 would be under PP.

I don't think the pubrules checker is all that smart about
the intricacies of patent policy.
 

paul

Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 14:55:28 UTC