Re: comments on ver 0.8

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Martha,

I fully agree that we do not want to go through another
major reorganization. 

However, NONE of the proposed changes (below) effect the 
overall organization of the document. My intent is to make
the document more readable (assigning major section numbers
to the high-order sub-components of the MSH) and to have the
section headings mean something useful to the reader.

At present, the document has section headings which do not reflect
the content within.

I would like to put my proposal (below) to a formal vote.

Thanks,

Chris

maw2@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> 
> Chris,
> I can appreciate your wanting to have the formatting consistent between the
> project teams - there should be consistency. However, we're starting into
> the eleventh hour and we're still talking about format - and changing it.
> We need to put a stake in the ground on the format and be done with it. If
> the group accepts your recommendations, that's great. But IMHO, after we do
> the next set of changes, the format should be finalized - whether it's
> consistent with the other project teams or not.
> 
> Thanks,
> Martha
> 
> christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/27/2000 02:34:47 PM
> 
> To:   "ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> cc:
> 
> Subject:  comments on ver 0.8
> 
> Ian/All,
> 
> I'd like to formally add/reopen the following comment
> for consideration. Please add it to the comment database.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> I'd like to reopen my previous comment (rejected) regarding
> the naming of the various sections of the document.
> In reviewing the TA spec, I notice that they have
> not followed the section naming in all cases. In fact,
> they have modified the section names to better reflect
> what they are (which is all I am advocating). I don't
> believe for a minute that anyone would have a problem
> if we named our document's sections in a meaningful
> manner. I also don't believe for a minute that
> 
> >From the TA 0.93 spec:
>         - 4.2 Audience and Scope
> I think that this actually makes a great deal of sense.
> Note also that the TA spec does NOT have a section
> entitled "Definition and Scope" as we have for
> our section 7. I would also cite that we have,
> for all intents and purposes, a set of caveats
> and assumptions listed in our section 4.3 "Audience".
> Finally, I think that it would be useful to call
> out as separate sections the various sub-components
> of the messaging service (see below.)
> 
> Proposal: rename the following sections, renumber all
> subsections affected accordingly:
> 
> Old                             New
> ------------                    ----------------------
> 4.3 Audience                    4.3 Audience and Scope
>                                 (add scope discussion)
> 5.2 Caveats and Assumptions     4.4 Caveats and Assumptions
>                                 (relocate line 259 to this section
> 5.1 .....                       eliminate sub-section header as
> unnecessary
> 7 Definition and Scope          7.0 Packaging
> 7.5 ebXML Header Document       8.0 Header Document
> 7.11 Reliable Messaging Flow    9.0 Reliable Messaging
> 7.13 ebXML Error Reporting      10.0 Error Reporting and Handling
> 7.14 Security                   11.0 Security
> 
> Note that I have removed 'ebXML' from sections 7.5 and 7.13
> as it should be patently obvious that all of this relates
> to ebXML. I think that it is overly redundant to qualify
> section headers in this manner.
> 
> (See attached file: chris.ferris.vcf)
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard