RE: [ws-rx] New proposed issues for Aug 10th call

Title: Message

We have been asking this question repeatedly to ourselves 
throughout the life of this TC :-). At this point of 
time, I am inclined to just continue with the established practices. 

 

I like Marc's idea of grouping all the editorial 
issues for the purposes of seeking the TC's approval. Let us give it a 
try.

 

-- Sanjay 

  

  
  From: Martin Chapman 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, Aug 10, 2006 
  12:29 PM
To: 'Marc Goodner'; 
  
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] New proposed issues 
  for Aug 10th call

  

  
do 
  we really need to add issues for pure editorial comments?

  
    

    
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner 
    [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 
    8:08 PM
To: 
Subject: [ws-rx] 
    New proposed issues for Aug 10th call

    

    
All new proposed 
    issues are attached since we still do not have archives. I would suggest 
    that as these are all editorial we could possibly accept them all as one 
    issue for the issue list to process rather than taking each individually. We 
    could of course separate out any from such a grouping that did need 
    discussion.

    
 

    
Propoes-01 
    location of normative XSD

    
 

    
Propoes-02 runon 
    sentence in section 2

    
 

    
Propoes-03 
    editorial def'n of RMS and RMD

    
 

    
Propoes-04 
    clarify second bullet in Protocol Invariants

    
 

    
Propoes-05 RM 
    Protocol Elements dives right into extensibility discussion, no 
    intro

    
 

    
Propoes-06 
    use of capitalization for defined terms

    
 

    
Propoes-07 
    Inconsistent use of single and double quotes for 
values

    
 

    
Propoes-08 
    WS-RX Public Review

    
 

    
Propoes-09 
    Text describing extensibility syntax in WS-RM needed in WS-RM 
    Policy

    
 

    
Propoes-10 
    Missing period on line 347 of WS-RM

    
 

    
Propoes-11 
    Weird gap on page 
21