Title: Specification number...
Hi
Daniel,
This was my preference
as well, but others seem to feel that we need a way to distinguish between the
two CSs. To me, we could do this by date (i.e., CS v1.0 Nov. 7/02, and CS
v1.0 Dec. 12/02), but perhaps some feel that this is not clear
enough...
Carlisle.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Engovatov
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002
2:44 PM
To: 'Carlisle Adams'; XACML TC
Subject: RE:
[xacml] Specification number...
Why
not just 1.0 all the way, even with further corrections. These are just
corrections, not a new standard.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle Adams
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 12,
2002 11:25 AM
To: XACML TC
Subject: [xacml]
Specification number...
Hi all,
On today's call we decided to change the number of the new
Committee Spec. to 1.1 (since the version we approved prior to the start of
the comment period was 1.0). However, in several places in the spec we
refer to "XACML v1.0", and all of our names (URIs) have "1.0" in them.
Ultimately, if we get to OASIS Standard, I assume that standard will be
numbered 1.0. This all seems potentially confusing.
Would it be any better to call this Committee Specification
version 1.01, or 1.0a, or 1.0.1? Any other suggestions or
comments?
Please respond as soon as possible; I'd like to get the
final version out today.
Carlisle.
