Re: Request for clarification

[Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>]

At 11:41 AM 1/30/01 -0800, Duane Nickull wrote:
>Hello all:

The comments provided here are mine alone.

>
>Brian E. and I are in the final process of disposing of comments on the
>TA Spec 1.0.  There are a few issues we need to have clarified.
>
>1) In the section that lists Normative References, we have received
>several comments asking for URL's to the references.  
>
>"RFC 2119
>W3C XML v1.0 Second Edition Specification
>ISO/IEC 14662: Open-edi Reference Model
>ISO 11179/3 Metadata Repository
>ISO 10646: Character Encoding
>ISO 8601:2000 Date/Time/Number Data typing"
>
>The problem I forsee in fulfiling this request is that URL's are subject
>to change.  We do not wish to make the document dated.  
>
>recommend:  Do nothing more that the above"

Suggest strongly that URI's be included. 
W3C's Document URL's are guaranteed to exist.
Use ISO and ISO/IEC numbers for all others.
>
>2)  We accidentally released the previous version as v 1.0.  Obviously, 
>the final version should be 1.0 (after the disposition of comments from
>the last review cycle and voted on by the plenary in Vancouver.)
>
>What do you suggest we number the next version as?

Use the date and time form for version numbers.
Assuming a minimum 1 second delta between versions,
you never get version number conflict.
>
>3) We received some comments (from one only individual) asking us to
>redraw certain shapes on our diagrams in different shapes (eg. - square
>to a circle, barrel to a square).
>
>We feel that becuase this is the request of one individual only and
>there is no explanation of his reasons for such a request,  that it will
>be left as is.
>
A request with no explanation does not deserve lengthy consideration.
I think that you initial instinct is correct.