Re: Request for clarification

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

My 2 cents (U.S.) below.

Duane Nickull wrote:

> Hello all:
>
> 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"

Concur.  The alternate approach that I have seen in academic journals and
style guides is to include a URL but also include the date that the page was
referenced.  This gives some indication of whether or not the URL might
still be current.

>
>
> 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?

1.0.1 or 1.0.a

>
>
> 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.
>
> Comments?

I would say leave it alone.

>
>
> Thank you for replying ASAP.
>
> Duane Nickull

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/