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

On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 11:16 -0400, Grosso, Paul wrote:
>  
> > -----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.

I realize that this area is a bit grey. Currently the advice
from the Comm Team is to label "Working Draft" those documents
that are in development, for any end state (whether Rec or Note)
and to use text in the status section to explain the group's
plan.

> But consider that a comment on the process document

Ok.

> 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.

The latest version URI will always be /TR/C14N (or whatever is chosen).
The "this version" URI will go from WD-C14N-YYYYMMDD to
NOTE-C14N-YYYYMMDD when it is published as a Note.

> > 
> > 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.

That's ok; still trying to enable you to get done.

> 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.

I will try to have a look before Thursday COB.

 _ Ian


> 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
> > 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447