RE: Last Call Draft 01 -- Comments

Hey, yes, that is wierd!

The example seems to have got corrupted somehow, the source file is also
corrupt. That is a file that is not generated by my code and validatd
against schema. I will fix the text but I don't think we need to re-release
yet.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ari Kermaier [mailto:arik@phaos.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:23 PM
> To: W3C XKMS WG List
> Subject: Re: Last Call Draft 01 -- Comments
> 
> 
> 
> In Part II: Protocol Bindings section 3.1.1, in the example 
> LocateRequest and
> LocateResult messages, it looks like there's something wrong 
> with the values of
> the Service attributes.
> 
> Ari
> 
> Ari Kermaier    arik@phaos.com
> Engineering Manager
> Phaos Technology Corp.    http://www.phaos.com/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Reagle" <reagle@w3.org>
> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> Cc: <www-xkms@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:12 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Last Call Draft 01
> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks Philip, your attachments were too large for the 
> archive, but they're
> > now off the home page and at:
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-20030331/xkms-part-1.html
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-20030331/xkms-part-2.html
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/XKMS-20030331/issues.htm
> >
> > ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> >
> > Subject: Last Call Draft 01
> > Date: Monday 07 April 2003 15:36
> > From:
> > To: "'www-xkms@w3.org'" <www-xkms@w3.org>
> >
> > Here is the tar file for the last call draft with the 
> documents in html,
> > also for convenience here are two pdfs generated on my machine.
> >
> > The margins all look OK at this point, the examples have to 
> be in 9pt
> > because the W3C margin eats up a lot of room and dotNET 
> automatically
> > formats Base64 to be 75 chars per line. So you need 76 
> chars for decent
> > looking output and that can only be done at 9pt.
> >
> > The section headings are all labelled using anchors that 
> are a function of
> > the section or paragraph number concerned.
> >
> > This validates with the W3C validation tool, only the tool has bugs
> >  handling the doctype so you have to override and hit 
> another bug and
> >  finaly remove the doctype altogether and then get told 
> that it is missing.
> >  Also the file has to be explicitly specified as utf-8 
> because otherwise
> >  the stupid thing overrides the utf-8 specification with ASCII!!!
> >
> > The issues list is up to date and all the items are now addressed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 19:05:15 UTC