RE: Publication Request: First Public Working Draft of C14N 1.1 and 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.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2006&uimode=filter&filter=Filter
+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr&patpol=w3c&normative=yes&rectrack=no&prevrec=none#docreqs

> And then what should the "Latest version"
> URLs in these drafts be?

Presumably /TR/C14N

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.

 _ 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